51908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 

[Docket No. NHTSA–29134] 

RIN 2127–AJ10 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Occupant Protection in 

Interior Impact; Side Impact 

Protection; Fuel System Integrity; 

Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte 

Spillage and Electrical Shock 

Protection; Side Impact Phase-In 

Reporting Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule incorporates a 

dynamic pole test into Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

214, ‘‘Side impact protection.’’ To meet 

the test, vehicle manufacturers will 

need to assure head and improved chest 

protection in side crashes. It will lead to 

the installation of new technologies, 

such as side curtain air bags and torso 

side air bags, which are capable of 

improving head and thorax protection to 

occupants of vehicles that crash into 

poles and trees and vehicles that are 

laterally struck by a higher-riding 

vehicle. The side air bag systems 

installed to meet the requirements of 

this final rule will also reduce fatalities 

and injuries caused by partial ejections 

through side windows. 

Vehicles will be tested with two new, 

scientifically advanced test dummies 

representing a wide range of occupants, 

from mid-size males to small females. A 

test dummy known as the ES–2re will 

represent mid-size adult male 

occupants. A test dummy known as the 

SID–IIs will represent smaller stature 

occupants. The SID–IIs is the size of a 

5th percentile adult female. 

This final rule also enhances FMVSS 

No. 214’s moving deformable barrier 

(MDB) test. The current 50th percentile 

male dummy in the front seat of tested 

vehicles will be replaced with the more 

biofidelic ES–2re. In the rear seat, the 

new 5th percentile female SID–IIs 

dummy will be used, thus improving 

protection to a greater segment of 

occupants seated in rear seating 

positions. 

The ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU),’’ was 

enacted in August 2005. Section 10302 

of the Act directed the agency ‘‘to 

complete a rulemaking proceeding 

under chapter 301 of title 49, United 

States Code, to establish a standard 

designed to enhance passenger motor 

vehicle occupant protection, in all 

seating positions, in side impact 

crashes.’’ In accordance with § 10302, 

the side impact air bags installed in 

front seats and vehicle changes made to 

rear seats will enhance, substantially, 

passenger motor vehicle occupant 

protection in side impacts. 

DATES: Effective date: The date on 

which this final rule amends the CFR is 

November 13, 2007. 

Petition date: If you wish to petition 

for reconsideration of this rule, your 

petition must be received by October 26, 

2007. 

Compliance dates: This final rule 

adopts a four-year phase-in of the new 

test requirements. The phase-in begins 

on September 1, 2009. By September 1, 

2012, all vehicles must meet the 

upgraded pole and barrier test 

requirements of the standard, with 

certain exceptions. Alterers, 

manufacturers of vehicles produced in 

more than one stage, and manufacturers 

of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating greater than 3,855 kilograms (kg) 

(8,500 pounds (lb)) have until 

September 1, 2013 to meet the upgraded 

pole and barrier test requirements. 

Manufacturers can earn credits toward 

meeting the applicable phase-in 

percentages by producing compliant 

vehicles ahead of schedule, beginning 

November 13, 2007 and ending at the 

conclusion of the phase-in. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

The petition will be placed in the 

docket. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all documents 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call 

Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of 

Crashworthiness Standards, telephone 

202–366–4801. For legal issues, you 

may call Deirdre R. Fujita, NHTSA 

Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202– 

366–2992. You may send mail to these 

officials at the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

a. Final Rule 

b. How the Final Rule Differs From the 

NPRM 

c. Congressional Mandate 

II. Safety Need 

III. NPRM 

a. Summary of Main Aspects of the 

Proposal Preceding This Final Rule 

1. Oblique Pole Test 

2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) Test 

3. Lead Time 

A. Oblique Pole Test 

B. MDB Test 

b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572 

c. Comment Periods Reopened Until April 

12, 2005; Request for Comment 

IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program 

V. Summary of Comments 

VI. Response to Comments 

a. Critical Decisions 

1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy 

A. We Are Denying the Alliance’s 

WorldSID Petition 

B. The Side Impact Dummy Can Be 

Upgraded Now to the ES–2re Without 

Further Delay 

C. The ES–2re Is an Improvement Over the 

ES–2 

D. The ES–2re Should Measure More Than 

HIC 

2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy 

A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female 

Dummy Is an Integral Part of This 

Upgrade 

i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in 

the Pole Test 

ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in 

the MDB Test 

iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment 

B. However, Not All of the Proposed FRG 

Changes Are Needed 

b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure 

1. Speed 

2. Angle 

3. Positioning the Seat for the Test 

A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position 

B. Head Restraints 

4. Impact Reference Line 

5. Test Attitude 

6. Rear Seat Pole Test 

7. Door Closed 

8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test 

9. Quasi Static Test 

10. Vehicle Exclusions 

11. Practicability 

12. International Harmonization 

c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure 

1. The Moving Deformable Barrier 

2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test 

Burden 

A. Arm Position 

B. Reducing the Number of Tests 

3. Other 

d. Injury Criteria 

1. Head Injury Criterion 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51909 

1These different side air bag systems are 

described in a glossary in Appendix A to this 

preamble. 

2 Improving side impact protection and reducing 

the risk of ejection are prominent in the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s strategies 

to improve occupant protection. Further 

requirements to mitigate ejection are being 

developed by the agency to fulfill Sec. 10301 of 

SAFETEA–LU, which amended the National 

Highway and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301) to require the Secretary to issue by 

October 1, 2009 an ejection mitigation final rule 

reducing complete and partial ejections of 

occupants from outboard seating positions (49 

U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)). 

3Samaha R. S., Elliott D. S., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact 

Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test 

Procedures,’’ 18th International Technical 

Conference on the Enhanced Safety Of Vehicles 

Conference (ESV), Paper No. 492, 2003. 

4Benefits and costs are estimated assuming 100 

percent installation of Electronic Stability Control 

(ESC) systems in vehicles, and are based on 

manufacturers’ current and planned installation of 

side air bags. 

5There are a wide variety of baseline side air bag 

systems planned for MY 2011. Some of these 

systems meet the final rule requirements, while 

manufacturers need to incorporate wider side air 

bags in others or add wide thorax side air bags or 

window curtains. The $33 incremental cost 

estimate is a weighted average of the costs to bring 

all these different baseline conditions into 

compliance with the final rule. 

2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria 

A. ES–2re 

i. Chest Deflection 

ii. ES–2re Lower Spine Acceleration 

B. SID–IIs Lower Spine Acceleration 

3. ES–2re Abdominal Criterion 

4. Pelvic Criterion 

A. ES–2re 

B. SID–IIs 

e. Lead Time 

1. Pole Test 

2. MDB Test 

f. Related Side Impact Programs 

1. Out-of-Position Testing 

2. Side NCAP 

3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214 

g. Comments on the PEA 

VII. Costs and Benefits 

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

IX. Appendices 

I. Executive Summary 

a. Final Rule 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, ‘‘Side 

impact protection,’’ currently provides 

thoracic and pelvic protection in a test 

using a moving deformable barrier to 

simulate being struck in the side by 

another vehicle. NHTSA is upgrading 

FMVSS No. 214 by requiring all 

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less 

(10,000 lb or less) to protect front seat 

occupants in a vehicle-to-pole test 

simulating a vehicle crashing sideways 

into narrow fixed objects like utility 

poles and trees. By doing so it requires 

vehicle manufacturers to assure head 

and improved chest protection in side 

crashes for a wide range of occupant 

sizes and over a broad range of seating 

positions. It will ensure the installation 

of new technologies, such as side 

curtain air bags 1 and torso side air bags, 

which are capable of improving head 

and thorax protection to occupants of 

vehicles that crash into poles and trees 

and of vehicles that are laterally struck 

by a higher-riding vehicle. The side air 

bag systems installed to meet the 

requirements of this final rule will also 

reduce fatalities and injuries caused by 

partial ejections through side windows.2

This will be the first time that head 

injury criteria must be met under the 

standard. In addition, thoracic, 

abdominal and pelvic protection in the 

FMVSS No. 214 crash tests must also be 

provided. 

Vehicles will be tested with two new, 

scientifically advanced test dummies 

representing a wide range of occupants, 

from mid-size males to small females. A 

test dummy known as the ES–2re will 

represent mid-size adult male 

occupants. The ES–2re, a modified 

version of the European ES–2 side 

impact dummy, has improved 

biofidelity and enhanced injury 

assessment capability compared to all 

other mid-size adult male dummies 

used today. A test dummy known as the 

SID–IIs will represent smaller stature 

occupants. The SID–IIs is the size of a 

5th percentile adult female. Crash data 

indicate that 34 percent of all serious 

and fatal injuries to near-side occupants 

in side impacts occurred to occupants 5 

feet 4 inches (163 cm) or less, who are 

better represented by the 5th percentile 

dummy.3 (Specifications for the ES–2re 

and SID–IIs dummies have already been 

adopted into the agency’s regulation for 

anthropomorphic test dummies, 49 CFR 

Part 572. For the ES–2re, the final rule 

was published December 14, 2006; 71 

FR 75304 (NHTSA Docket 25441). For 

the SID–IIs, the final rule published 

December 14, 2006; 71 FR 75342 

(Docket 25442).) 

This final rule also enhances FMVSS 

No. 214’s moving deformable barrier 

(MDB) test. In the test, the current 50th 

percentile male dummy in the front seat 

of tested vehicles will be replaced with 

the more biofidelic ES–2re. In the rear 

seat, the 5th percentile female SID–IIs 

dummy will be used, to enhance 

protection to a greater segment of 

occupants seated in rear seating 

positions. The 50th percentile male 

dummy and the 5th percentile female 

dummy together better represent the atrisk population than one dummy alone. 

Through use of both test dummies, 

vehicles must provide head, enhanced 

thoracic and pelvic protection to 

occupants ranging from mid-size males 

to small occupants in vehicle-to-vehicle 

side crashes. 

We estimate that this final rule will 

prevent 311 fatalities and 361 serious 

injuries a year 4 when fully 

implemented throughout the light 

vehicle fleet. Countermeasures that not 

only reduce head injuries, but that also 

help reduce partial ejections through 

side windows, can save additional lives. 

The cost of the most likely potential 

countermeasure—a 2-sensor per vehicle 

window curtain and separate thorax 

side air bag system—compared to no 

side air bags is estimated to be $243 per 

vehicle. After analyzing the data 

voluntarily submitted by manufacturers 

on their planned installation of side air 

bag systems, we estimate this final rule 

will increase the average vehicle cost by 

$33 5 and increase total annual costs for 

the fleet by $560 million. We provide 

sufficient lead time to ensure that 

compliance is practicable. 

The agency’s data show that the 

majority of side air bag systems are 

currently equipped with two side 

impact sensors. If the market share of 

the two-sensor and four-sensor systems 

remains unchanged, the incremental 

cost for the most likely air bag system 

(curtain and thorax bag two-sensor 

countermeasure) would be about $620 

million, or $37 per vehicle, assuming all 

light vehicles will be equipped with 

curtain air bags. 

This final rule fulfills the mandate of 

the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users,’’ which was signed by 

President George W. Bush in August 

2005. Evidently aware of the agency’s 

pending notice of proposed rulemaking 

to upgrade FMVSS No. 214, Section 

10302 of the Act directed the agency ‘‘to 

complete a rulemaking proceeding 

under chapter 301 of title 49, United 

States Code, to establish a standard 

designed to enhance passenger motor 

vehicle occupant protection, in all 

seating positions, in side impact 

crashes.’’

State of the Art 

The state of knowledge and 

practicability of measures that can be 

taken to improve side impact protection 

are considerably greater than they were 

just a decade ago. Extensive work by 

those involved in the design, 

manufacture and evaluation of vehicle 

safety systems have led to substantial 

progress in crash test dummies, injury 

criteria and countermeasures used to 

mitigate side impacts. Inflatable side 

impact air bags (SIABs) have become 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

6Samaha, supra. 

7Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, ‘‘FMVSS No. 

214; Amending side impact dynamic test; Adding 

oblique pole test.’’ Braver and Kyrychenko (2003) 

estimated that torso bags plus head protection 

reduced drivers’ fatality risk in nearside impacts by 

45 percent relative to drivers in cars without SIABs. 

Braver and Kyrychenko, ‘‘Efficacy of Side Airbags 

in Reducing Driver Deaths in Driver-Side 

Collisions,’’ IIHS Status Report, Vol. 38, August 26, 

2003. That study was based on fewer crash data 

than those used by NHTSA in its 2005 analysis. 

8See Docket NHTSA–2003–14623–13. Alliance 

and AIAM members agreed to this voluntary 

commitment. Under Phase 1 of the voluntary 

commitment, manufacturers have agreed that, not 

later than September 1, 2007, at least 50 percent of 

each manufacturer’s new passenger car and light 

truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) production 

intended for sale in the U.S. will be designed in 

accordance with either of the following head 

protection alternatives: (a) HIC36 performance of 

1000 or less for a SID–H3 crash dummy in the 

driver’s seating position in an FMVSS No. 201 pole 

impact test, or (b) HIC15 performance of 779 or less 

(with no direct head contact with the barrier) for a 

SID–IIs crash dummy in the driver’s seating 

position in the IIHS MDB perpendicular side 

impact test. HIC36 means the calculation of HIC is 

limited to a maximum time interval of 36 

milliseconds. HIC15 refers to a HIC calculating using 

a maximum time interval of 15 milliseconds. In 

Phase 2, not later than September 1, 2009, 100 

percent of each manufacturer’s new passenger car 

and light truck (GVWR up to 3,855 kg) (8,500 lb) 

production will be designed in accordance with the 

IIHS MDB recommended practice of HIC15

performance of 779 or less for a SID–IIs crash 

dummy in the driver’s seating position. The 

voluntary commitment provides exclusions for 

vehicles ‘‘that a manufacturer determines, due to 

basic practicability and functionality reasons, 

cannot meet the performance criteria, and would 

have to be eliminated from the market if 

compliance were required.’’ (Alliance comment to 

Docket 17694, page 4, April 12, 2005.) 

9Section IV of the May 17, 2004 NPRM discusses 

the regulatory, research and technological 

developments related to FMVSS No. 214, from 1990 

to the present. 69 FR at 27993. 

10See Section IV of this preamble; also NHTSA’s 

technical report of the test program, ‘‘NHTSA Fleet 

Testing for FMVSS No. 214 Upgrade MY 2004–

2005,’’ April 2006, Docket 25441–11 (25441 is the 

docket for the ES–2re test dummy final rule); and 

memorandum regarding location of the test date. 

December 6, 2006, Docket 25441–9. 

11 Docket 25442; final rule adopting SID–IIs Build 

Level D dummy into 49 CFR Part 572. 

available in current production vehicles. 

They vary widely in designs, sizes, 

mounting locations, methods of 

inflation and areas of coverage. For 

example, side impact protection systems 

include door-mounted thorax bags, seatmounted thorax bags, seat-mounted 

head/thorax bags, and head protection 

systems that deploy from the roof rails 

(e.g., inflatable curtains, and inflatable 

tubular structures). 

While varied in design, SIABs make 

possible vast improvements in head and 

torso protection that can be provided in 

side impacts. Head injuries alone 

account for 41 percent of the total 

deaths in the target population 

addressed by this final rule. For smallerstature occupants, head injury 

represents a higher proportion of the 

serious injuries than it does for larger 

occupants, as a result of relatively more 

head contacts with the striking vehicle.6

NHTSA estimates that SIABs reduce 

fatality risk for nearside occupants by an 

estimated 24 percent; torso bags alone, 

by 14 percent.7

These remarkable improvements can 

accrue at reasonable costs. Vehicle 

manufacturers are already installing 

SIABs in some of their new vehicles. On 

December 4, 2003, the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, the 

Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers (AIAM), and the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

(IIHS) announced a new voluntary 

commitment to enhance occupant 

protection in front-to-side and front-tofront crashes. The industry initiative 

consisted of improvements and research 

made in several phases, focusing, among 

other things, on accelerating the 

installation of SIABs.8

Through voluntary efforts, 

manufacturers are able to begin 

equipping vehicles with advanced 

technologies and are able to advance 

safety more quickly than through the 

regulatory process. In formulating this 

regulation, we have been mindful to 

remain consistent with the 

technological advances upon which the 

industry’s voluntary commitment were 

based, so as not to discourage further 

implementation while manufacturers 

develop designs and technologies that 

are able to comply with this regulation. 

This regulation builds on the same 

technologies that will be used by the 

industry to meet its voluntary 

commitment, and takes them even 

further. 

The industry’s voluntary commitment 

demonstrated the feasibility of SIABs as 

a fleet-wide countermeasure and 

ushered in a new stage in the regulatory, 

research and technological 

developments relating to side impact 

protection.9 This final rule broadens 

and fortifies this stage. Establishing 

these requirements as an FMVSS 

assures enhanced protection to all 

purchasers of vehicles, from those 

buying the most economical cars to 

purchasers of luxury trucks, to 

consumers in between. Together, the 

near term voluntary commitment and 

this final rule will achieve 

unprecedented side impact protection 

benefits. 

b. How the Final Rule Differs From the 

NPRM 

The noteworthy changes from the 

NPRM are outlined below and 

explained in detail later in this 

preamble. More minor changes (e.g., 

arm position of the dummies for the 

MDB tests, procedures for determining 

vehicle test attitude for the MDB test) 

are discussed in the appropriate 

sections of this preamble. 

A. The agency proposed to use a SID–

IIs Build C small female test dummy to 

which the agency had added ‘‘floating 

rib guide’’ (FRG) components to 

increase the durability of the dummy. 

The dummy with the FRG modification 

was called the ‘‘SID–IIsFRG.’’

Comments to the NPRM maintained that 

the entirety of the FRG modifications 

was unnecessary, and that the totality of 

the FRG modifications needlessly 

reduced the biofidelity and 

functionality of the dummy. Some 

commenters suggested alternative 

means of improving the durability of the 

Build Level C dummy. After reviewing 

the comments to the NPRM and 

available test data, including the 

performance of the SID–IIs dummy in 

vehicle tests conducted with 2004–2005 

model year (MY) vehicles 10 [hereinafter 

‘‘214 fleet testing program’’], we have 

decided to adopt some, but not all, of 

the FRG modifications, and to adopt the 

commenters’ alternative suggested 

revisions to Build Level C. The SID–IIs 

dummy adopted today into FMVSS No. 

214 is referred to as the SID–IIs ‘‘Build 

Level D’’ crash test dummy.11 Build 

Level D incorporates features stemming 

from the FRG and from users’ efforts to 

enhance the functionality of predecessor 

SID–IIs dummies. 

B. Mindful of the magnitude of this 

rulemaking and the principles for 

regulatory decisionmaking set forth in 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, NHTSA 

examined the benefits and costs of this 

rulemaking and, based on that analysis, 

took steps to reduce unnecessary test 

burdens associated with this final rule. 

After reviewing the comments to the 

NPRM and available test data, including 

MDB testing conducted in the NHTSA 

214 fleet testing program, we have 

decided to require one MDB test per 

side of the vehicle. The MDB test 

specifies use of an ES–2re (50th 

percentile adult male) dummy in the 

front seating position and a SID–IIs (5th 

percentile adult female) dummy in the 

rear. Virtually all vehicles tested in the 

214 fleet testing program met the MDB 

requirements when tested with SID–IIs 

in the front seat and the ES–2re dummy 

in the rear. Accordingly, we concluded 

that no additional benefits would accrue 

from an MDB test with the dummies so 

configured. 

C. After reviewing the comments to 

the NPRM, the results of the 214 fleet 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51911 

12This estimates that window curtains, thorax 

side impact air bags, and two sensors per vehicle 

will be used. 

13Enhancing the protection of the seating 

positions under consideration in the NPRM 

addresses over 99% of the non-rollover side impact 

fatalities. In our analysis of vehicle sales, we found 

that 0 percent of passenger cars and 22 percent of 

light trucks have 3 or more rows of seats (minivans, 

some SUVs, and some full size vans). Assuming 

that passenger cars and light trucks each have 50 

percent of all light vehicle sales, about 11 percent 

of all light vehicle sales will involve vehicles with 

3 or more rows of seating. Looking at adult fatalities 

in side impacts in which non-rollovers were the 

primary event, there were 17 fatalities in the 3rd, 

4th, or 5th rows. In comparison, in the same types 

of non-rollover side impacts, there were 8,570 adult 

fatalities in all rows. The 3+ row seats comprise 0.2 

percent of the fatalities in that population (17/8,570 

= 0.002). 

testing program and production plans 

which show installation of side air bags 

in vehicles ahead of the proposed 

schedule, we have determined that it 

would be practicable to provide a twoyear lead time instead of the four-year 

lead time proposed in the NPRM 

leading up to the beginning of the 

phased-in pole test requirements. 

Compared to the original schedule, this 

would accelerate the benefits expected 

to be provided by side air bag systems 

and other countermeasures by phasingin the requirements starting with 20 

percent of model year (MY) 2010 

vehicles. As explained in the FRIA, the 

phase-in schedule and percentages of 

this final rule facilitate the installation 

of side impact air bags and other safety 

countermeasures in light vehicles as 

quickly as possible, while the allowance 

of advanced credits provides 

manufacturers a way of allocating their 

resources in an efficient manner to meet 

the schedule. At the same time, we are 

also adding a fourth year to the 

proposed 3-year phase-in period and are 

making other adjustments to the 

schedule for heavier vehicles, to 

enhance the practicability of meeting 

the new requirements and provide 

additional flexibility to manufacturers 

to meet the requirements. Accordingly, 

under the phase-in schedule adopted in 

this final rule, the following percentages 

of each manufacturer’s vehicles will be 

required to meet the new requirements: 

—20 percent of ‘‘light’’ vehicles (gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less or 

equal to 3,855 kilograms (kg) (8,500 

pounds) (lb) manufactured during the 

period from September 1, 2009 to 

August 31, 2010; 

—50 percent of light vehicles 

manufactured during the period from 

September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011; 

—75 percent of light vehicles 

manufactured during the period from 

September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012; 

—100 percent of light vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2012, including limited line and small 

volume vehicles; 

—100 percent of vehicles with a GVWR 

greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2013 and vehicles produced by 

alterers and multistage manufacturers. 

In addition, vehicle manufacturers 

will be able to earn credits for meeting 

the requirements ahead of schedule. 

We are providing more lead time to 

meet the pole test requirements to 

manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR 

greater than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) because 

the vehicles have never been regulated 

under FMVSS No. 214’s dynamic 

requirements and are not subject to the 

industry’s voluntary commitment to 

install side air bags. Because more 

redesign of the vehicle side structure, 

interior trim, and/or optimization of 

dynamically deploying head/side 

protection systems may be needed in 

these vehicles than in light vehicles, 

this final rule does not subject these 

vehicles to the pole test requirements 

until September 1, 2013. 

D. We have decided to adopt a phasein for the MDB test, and align the phasein schedule with the oblique pole test 

requirements, with advance credits. In 

our test program, the SID–IIs in the rear 

seat of several vehicles measured 

elevated rib deflections and high pelvic 

loads that did not meet the injury 

criterion. This information indicated 

that structural and/or other changes to 

the rear seat of some vehicles are 

needed to provide improved chest and 

pelvic protection in the MDB test. An 

aligned phase-in will allow 

manufacturers to optimize engineering 

resources to design vehicles that meet 

the MDB and pole test requirements 

simultaneously, thus reducing costs. 

Manufacturers will also be able to use 

credits to more efficiently distribute 

their resources to meet the 

requirements. 

E. For this final rule, the agency has 

re-examined the baseline fleet 

conditions projected to the compliance 

date of this final rule and has therefore 

adjusted the target population that 

would benefit from this rulemaking. In 

determining the target population for 

this final rule, the agency has assumed 

a 100 percent Electronic Stability 

Control (ESC) penetration in the model 

MY 2011 new vehicle fleet, and has 

further adjusted the estimated benefits 

of the rule by considering data from 

vehicle manufacturers on their planned 

installation of side air bags and on 

projected sales through model year MY 

2011. Based on that information, the 

agency estimates that this rulemaking 

will save 311 fatalities and 361 serious 

injuries a year.12 These values are lower 

than the NPRM’s estimated benefits of 

1,027 fatalities and 999 serious injuries 

saved annually, because the proposed 

estimates were based on the distribution 

of the different types of side air bag 

systems in the MY 2003 new vehicle 

fleet and did not assume 100% ESC 

penetration. 

For this final rule, because the agency 

has used more extensive information, 

including manufacturers’ planned 

installation of side air bags through MY 

2011, the cost estimates of this final rule 

are also lower than those of the NPRM. 

The average vehicle incremental cost of 

the curtain and thorax bag two-sensor 

countermeasure is estimated to increase 

the average vehicle cost by $33, which 

is lower than the estimated NPRM cost 

of $177 per vehicle. 

c. Congressional Mandate 

On August 10, 2005, President Bush 

signed the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users,’’ (SAFETEA–LU), 

Public Law 109–59 (Aug. 10, 2005; 119 

Stat. 1144), to authorize funds for 

Federal-aid highways, highway safety 

programs, and transit programs, and for 

other purposes. Section 10302(a) of 

SAFETEA–LU provides: 

Sec. 10302. Side-Impact Crash 

Protection Rulemaking 

(a) Rulemaking.—The Secretary shall 

complete a rulemaking proceeding under 

chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, 

to establish a standard designed to enhance 

passenger motor vehicle occupant protection, 

in all seating positions, in side impact 

crashes. The Secretary shall issue a final rule 

by July 1, 2008. 

At the time of the enactment of 

§ 10302(a), the agency’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking to upgrade 

FMVSS No. 214 was pending. This final 

rule completes the rulemaking 

proceeding under consideration, and 

enhances the side impact protection of 

all the seating positions that the NPRM 

had proposed to upgrade.13 In this 

rulemaking, we considered several 

regulatory alternatives (see Chapter IX 

of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis) 

and, consistent with Executive Order 

12866, have maximized the benefits of 

those alternatives in the cost effective 

range. 

We interpret SAFETEA–LU as 

providing us a fair amount of discretion. 

This regulation was initiated by NHTSA 

prior to enactment of SAFETEA–LU and 

we are required by the statute to 

complete it. We believe that SAFETEA–

LU requires us to enhance the occupant 

protection of all seating positions under 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

14Report to Congress, ‘‘Status of NHTSA Plan for 

Side Impact Regulation Harmonization and 

Upgrade,’’ March 1999, Docket NHTSA–98–3935–

10. 

15The agency’s analysis also found some fatality 

benefits for far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 

FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted far-side occupant 

fatalities in side impacts. 16Manufacturers’ product plans submitted to the 

agency indicated that 71 percent of the MY 2011 

light vehicles will be equipped with ESC. For the 

purposes of estimating benefits for today’s final 

rule, we have assumed that more vehicles will be 

ESC-equipped, in part because the final rule on 

electronic stability control systems requires all MY 

2012 vehicles to have ESC (Docket 27662). 

Accordingly, to estimate benefits for this FMVSS 

No. 214 final rule, we have assumed 100 percent 

of the MY 2011 light vehicles will have ESC. 

consideration in the NPRM (front and 

rear outboard seating positions), without 

specifying the particular regulatory 

instruments or approaches that should 

be used to enhance occupant protection 

in those seating positions. SAFETEA–

LU requires that this rulemaking be 

conducted in compliance with the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), 

which includes the directive that our 

motor vehicle safety standards ‘‘shall be 

practicable, meet the need for motor 

vehicle safety, and be stated in objective 

terms’ (49 U.S.C. 30111(a)). Thus, in 

responding to the comments to the 

NPRM (see section VI of this preamble), 

we must ensure that the upgraded 

FMVSS No. 214 final rule meets the 

criteria of Section 30111 (that it is 

practicable, that it meets the need for 

safety, and that it is stated in objective 

terms), while meeting the instruction of 

SAFETEA–LU that the final rule 

enhance occupant side impact 

protection in the seating positions under 

consideration in the NPRM. 

This final rule enhances side impact 

protection in the front seating positions 

by requiring manufacturers to provide 

head protection in side impacts for the 

first time in the Federal safety 

standards. Due to the biofidelity of the 

current side impact dummy (SID) head 

and neck, the agency had determined 

that it was not appropriate to assess 

head injury with that dummy.14 This 

final rule adopts into FMVSS No. 214 

two technologically advanced test 

dummies that have superior injury risk 

measurement capabilities compared to 

the SID, including the ability to assess 

the likelihood of head injury. The two 

test dummies represent occupants of 

different sizes: One represents an 

occupant of the size of a 5th percentile 

adult female, the other a mid-size (50th 

percentile) adult male. Use of both 

dummies in FMVSS No. 214 assures 

that occupant protection in side impacts 

is afforded across a wide range of 

occupant sizes. Further, this final rule 

adopts a dynamic pole test into FMVSS 

No. 214, specifying performance 

requirements that vehicles must meet 

when tested with the test dummies. 

Adoption of the pole test will result in 

the installation of new technologies, 

such as side curtain air bags and torso 

side air bags, which are capable of 

improving protection to an occupant’s 

head, thorax, abdomen and pelvis. The 

use of the two crash test dummies in the 

pole test will require manufacturers to 

assure whole-body protection of front 

seat occupants, from small stature 

females sitting as close as they can to 

the steering wheel, to mid-size males 

sitting mid-track. 

The final rule also enhances front seat 

occupant protection by specifying use of 

the new mid-size male dummy in the 

standard’s MDB test, which simulates a 

vehicle-to-vehicle crash. With its highly 

developed instrumentation and ability 

to assess rib deflections, the ES–2re will 

more thoroughly evaluate the degree to 

which manufacturers have designed 

vehicles’ front seats to protect occupants 

in vehicle-to-vehicle side crashes. 

This final rule enhances occupant 

crash protection in rear seats as well. 

For the first time in the Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards, a limit is 

adopted on the risk of head injury for 

rear seat occupants. In addition, this 

final rule specifies the use of the 5th 

percentile adult female test dummy in 

testing rear seats in the MDB test of 

FMVSS No. 214. This change will 

enable NHTSA to assess better the 

ability of the rear seat environment to 

protect children, the elderly and small 

adults—a more vulnerable population 

than the mid-size adult male 

population—in vehicle-to-vehicle 

crashes. The dummy is more 

representative of rear seat occupants 

than the SID. Further, the injury 

assessment reference values we will use 

with the dummy are set at levels that 

reflect the effect of aging on tolerance. 

II. Safety Need 

In the 2004 Fatality Analysis 

Reporting System (FARS), there were 

9,270 side impact fatalities. For our 

target population, as described in the 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) 

for this final rule, we excluded from 

these side impact fatalities those cases 

which were not relevant to the oblique 

pole and/or MDB crash conditions of 

this final rule. This left us with a target 

population of 2,311 fatalities and 5,891 

non-fatal serious to critical MAIS 3–5 

injuries for near-side occupants. The 

2,311 fatalities were divided into two 

groups for the analysis: (1) Vehicle to 

pole impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle 

or other roadside objects impacts, which 

include partial ejections in these 

cases.15

In this target population, 41 percent of 

the total fatalities are caused by head/ 

face injuries, 34 percent by chest 

injuries and 6 percent by abdominal 

injuries. In contrast, for the 5,891 nonfatal MAIS 3–5 target population, chest 

injuries are the predominate and 

maximum injury source, accounting for 

48 percent. Head/face injuries account 

for 20 percent, and abdominal injuries 

account for two percent. Combining all 

serious to fatal injuries, chest injuries 

account for 49 percent, head/face 

injuries account for 26 percent, and 

abdominal injuries account for three 

percent. 

For these two groups, we made an 

adjustment for estimated benefits that 

would result from the installation of 

Electronic Stability Control (ESC) 

systems in vehicles, based on an 

assumption that model year 2011 

vehicles would be equipped with ESC.16

The ESC adjustment is shown below in 

Table 1: 

TABLE 1.—TARGET POPULATION ADJUSTED WITH ESC 

[Fatalities and MAIS 3+ for occupants, Delta–V Range of 12–25 mph] 

Crash mode MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatal 

Veh-to-Pole ...................................................................................................... 368 210 72 219

Veh-to-Veh/others ............................................................................................ 3,713 903 177 1,823 

Total .......................................................................................................... 4,081 1,113 249 2,042 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51913 

17 In 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending 

FMVSS No. 201, ‘‘Occupant protection in interior 

impact,’’ to require passenger cars, and trucks, 

buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) 

or less, to provide protection when an occupant’s 

head strikes certain upper interior components, 

including pillars, side rails, headers, and the roof, 

during a crash. The amendments added procedures 

and performance requirements for a new in-vehicle 

test, which were phased in beginning in model year 

1999. 

18FMVSS No. 201 employs an optional pole test 

to permit the installation of dynamically deploying 

upper interior head protection systems. This test 

was part of a set of amendments adopted in 1998 

to permit, but not require, the installation of 

dynamically deploying upper interior head 

protection systems that were then under 

development (63 FR 41451; August 4, 1998). In the 

optional crash test, the vehicle is propelled at a 

speed between 24 km/h (15 mph) and 29 km/h (18 

mph) into a rigid pole at an angle of 90 degrees. The 

pole test injury criterion is HIC of 1000. The May 

17, 2004 NPRM requested comment on adopting the 

FMVSS No. 201 pole test instead of the oblique pole 

test that was the preferred agency approach at the 

NPRM stage. 19While 20 mph converts to 32.2 km/h, we are 

rounding 32.2 km/h to 32 km/h. 20When testing the driver side of the vehicle, an 

impact reference line is drawn on the vehicle’s 

exterior where it intersects with a vertical plane 

passing through the head CG of the seated driver 

dummy at an angle of 75 degrees from the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline measured counterclockwise 

from the vehicle’s positive X axis (see S10.14 of the 

regulatory text set forth in today’s document). When 

testing the front passenger side, the impact 

reference line would be drawn where it intersects 

with a vertical plane passing through the head CG 

of the passenger dummy seated in the front 

outboard designated seating position at an angle of 

285 degrees from the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline measured counterclockwise from the 

vehicle’s positive X axis as defined in S10.14 of 

today’s regulatory text. The vehicle is aligned so 

that, when the pole contacts the vehicle, the vertical 

center line of the pole surface as projected on the 

pole’s surface, in the direction of the vehicle 

motion, is within a surface area on the vehicle 

exterior bounded by two vertical planes in the 

direction of the vehicle motion and 38 mm (1.5 

inches) forward and aft of the impact reference line. 

The test vehicle would be propelled sideways into 

the pole. Its line of forward motion would form an 

angle of 75 degrees (or 285 degrees) (±3 degrees) in 

the left (or right) side impact measured from the 

vehicle’s positive X axis in the counterclockwise 

direction. 

21USCAR consists of DaimlerChrysler, Ford and 

General Motors. The SID–IIs is used by Transport 

Canada for research purposes, and by the Insurance 

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit 

group funded by insurers, in IIHS’s 48 km/h (30 

mph) side crash test consumer information 

program. 

We also made an adjustment based on 

the estimated benefits that would result 

from the FMVSS No. 201 upper interior 

requirements for the A–pillar, B–pillar, 

and roof side rail.17 For the head, chest, 

abdomen and pelvis injuries, the 

fatalities for each crash mode, as 

adjusted for the effects of ESC and 

FMVSS No. 201, are shown below in 

Table 2: 

TABLE 2.—FATALITIES ADJUSTED, FRONT OCCUPANTS WITH ESC AND FMVSS NO. 201 HEAD, CHEST,

ABDOMEN AND PELVIS

Crash mode Head Chest Abdomen Pelvis Total 

Veh-to-Pole .......................................................................... 142 27 0 0 169 

Veh-to-Veh/others ................................................................ 493 689 137 63 1,382 

Total .............................................................................. 635 716 137 63 1,551 

III. NPRM 

a. Summary of Main Aspects of the 

Proposal Preceding This Final Rule 

NHTSA published the NPRM for this 

FMVSS No. 214 final rule on May 17, 

2004 (69 FR 27990, Docket No. 17694). 

The NPRM provided a 150-day 

comment period on the proposal. The 

150-day period closed October 14, 2004. 

1. Oblique Pole Test 

The NPRM proposed a pole test for 

FMVSS No. 214, and proposed to apply 

it to all passenger vehicles with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. The 

vehicle-to-pole test is similar to but 

more demanding than the one currently 

used optionally in FMVSS No. 201. The 

proposal was to propel a vehicle 

sideways into a rigid pole at an angle of 

75 degrees rather than the 90-degree 

angle used in FMVSS No. 201.18 (We 

refer to the test using the 75-degree 

impact angle as the ‘‘oblique pole test.’’) 

The test speed was proposed as any 

speed up to 32 km/h (20 mph) 19 rather 

than the maximum test speed of FMVSS 

No. 201’s optional pole test (29 km/h 

(18 mph)). The 75-degree angle of 

impact and 32 km/h test speed made the 

pole test more representative than the 

FMVSS No. 201 test of real world side 

crashes into narrow objects.20 Crashes 

with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or 

higher result in approximately half of 

the seriously injured occupants in 

narrow object near-side crashes. 

The NPRM proposed using the ES–2re 

(50th percentile adult male) test 

dummy, and the SID–IIs (5th percentile 

adult female) test dummy as modified 

by the addition of floating rib guide 

(FRG) modifications. 

The ES–2re is technically superior to 

both the SID–H3 50th percentile male 

test dummy currently used in the 

optional pole test of FMVSS No. 201 

and the SID dummy now used in the 

MDB test of FMVSS No. 214. NHTSA 

proposed injury criteria for the ES–2re’s 

injury measuring instrumentation of the 

dummy’s head, thorax, abdomen and 

pelvis. HIC was to be limited to 1,000 

measured in a 36 millisecond time 

interval (HIC36). Chest deflection could 

not be greater than 42 mm (1.65 in) for 

any rib. Resultant lower spine 

acceleration could not be greater than 82 

g. Abdominal loads could not exceed 

2,500 Newtons (N) (562 lb). For pelvic 

injury, the NPRM proposed to limit 

pubic symphysis force to 6,000 N (1,349 

lb). 

The SID–IIs test dummy was 

developed by the Occupant Safety 

Research Partnership (OSRP), a research 

group under the umbrella of the U.S. 

Council for Automotive Research 

(USCAR).21 NHTSA proposed to modify 

the dummy by adding the FRG 

modifications (the modified dummy is 

referred to as the SID–IIsFRG). Injury 

criteria for the SID–IIsFRG’s head, 

thorax, and pelvis were proposed. HIC36

was to be limited to 1,000. For thoracic 

injury, the agency proposed a limit of 82 

g on the resultant lower spine 

acceleration. A pelvic injury criterion of 

the sum of the iliac and acetabular 

forces measured on the dummy was 

proposed at 5,100 N. A limitation on rib 

deflection was not proposed because 

NHTSA wanted to obtain more 

information on the SID–IIsFRG’s rib 

deflection measurement capability and 

the deflection criteria that would be 

appropriate to apply to the dummy. For 

the same reasons, an abdominal injury 

criterion for the dummy was not 

proposed. 

The NPRM presented test data from 

full scale oblique pole tests using a midsize male dummy, and a small female 

dummy, to indicate the performance of 

vehicles in providing occupant 

protection in these side impacts. (These 

data are presented in Table 1 of 

Appendix C to this final rule.) As 

discussed in the NPRM, there were nine 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51914 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

22Under the FMVSS No. 201 seating procedure, 

the dummy’s head is positioned such that the point 

at the intersection of the rear surface of its head and 

a horizontal line parallel to the longitudinal 

centerline of the vehicle passing through the head’s 

center of gravity is at least 50 mm (2 in) forward 

of the front edge of the B-pillar. If needed, the seat 

back angle is adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, 

until the 50 mm (2 in) B-pillar clearance is 

achieved. If this is not sufficient to produce the 

desired clearance, the seat is moved forward to 

achieve that result. 

23Test results using the FMVSS No. 201 pole test 

procedures were presented in the NPRM, 69 FR at 

28008. 

tests using a mid-size male dummy. In 

four of the tests, the test dummy was 

positioned in the driver’s seating 

position as specified in the FMVSS No. 

214 MDB test procedure, i.e., the seat 

was positioned mid-track. The other 

tests were conducted with the seat 

positioned as specified in FMVSS No. 

201.22 Among other things, the NPRM 

data showed that the vehicles with air 

curtain systems performed well in 

providing head protection to occupants 

of the size of a 50th percentile adult 

male. Data for the 2004 Honda Accord 

demonstrated the practicability of 

meeting all of the NPRM’s proposed 

injury criteria for the pole test using the 

FMVSS No. 214 seating procedure with 

the ES–2re dummy. 

As discussed in the NPRM, one of the 

tests of a combination head/chest air bag 

system illustrated how the impact angle 

of the pole test can influence the level 

of protection provided by a vehicle’s 

side air bags. An oblique pole test of a 

1999 Nissan Maxima with a head/chest 

side impact air bag resulted in a HIC 

score of 5,254. The HIC of the Maxima 

in a 90-degree FMVSS No. 201 pole test 

resulted in a HIC score of 130. In the 

NPRM, NHTSA stated its expectation 

that, to comply with the proposed 

oblique pole test requirements, 

manufacturers will likely install head 

protection systems extending 

sufficiently toward the A-pillar to 

protect the head in the 75-degree 

approach angle test. The agency also 

noted that a 32 km/h (20 mph) oblique 

pole test has at least 15 percent more 

kinetic energy than an FMVSS No. 201 

90-degree pole test at 18 mph.23

The NPRM also discussed the results 

of three full scale oblique pole tests 

using the small female dummy on a 

2003 Camry with an air curtain and 

thorax bag, a 2000 Saab 9–5 with a 

combination bag, and a 2002 Ford 

Explorer (see Table 2 of Appendix C). 

The agency stated that in the NPRM that 

the HIC36 values generally exceeded the 

1,000 limit, and pelvic forces exceeded 

the proposed 5,100 N limit. In contrast, 

a 2003 Camry whose air curtain and 

thorax bags were remotely fired at 11 

milliseconds (ms) produced a HIC36 of 

512, and a 4,580 N pelvic force on the 

dummy. 

2. Moving Deformable Barrier (MDB) 

Test 

The current MDB test uses a 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy that 

was developed in the 1980s, and does 

not use a 5th percentile female dummy 

in the test. The NPRM proposed 

replacing the 50th percentile male 

dummy used with the technically 

advanced, more biofidelic ES–2re, and 

adding to the test the small female test 

dummy. For the first time in the MDB 

test, a head injury criterion was 

proposed. 

The NPRM presented test results from 

FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests of a 2001 

Ford Focus and a 2002 Chevrolet Impala 

using an ES–2re dummy in the driver 

and rear passenger seating positions (the 

data are set forth in Appendix C). These 

vehicles did not have side air bags in 

either front or rear seating positions. 

The test data from the NPRM showed 

that the Focus met the proposed test 

requirements when tested with the ES–

2re, while the Impala did not. The 

Impala failed to meet the 44 mm rib 

deflection criterion for the driver 

dummy (45.6 mm), and produced an 

abdominal force on the rear seat dummy 

of 4,409 N (proposed limit was between 

2,400–2,800 N). An examination of the 

passenger compartment interior 

revealed a protruding armrest of the 

Impala that contacted the abdominal 

area of the dummy, causing the high 

force reading. 

As discussed in the NPRM, tests of a 

2001 Ford Focus and 2002 Chevolet 

Impala using the SID–IIsFRG in the 

driver and rear passenger seating 

positions showed that the Focus almost 

fully complied with the proposed MDB 

test requirements. Only the pelvic force 

for the driver dummy was exceeded in 

the test, which was attributed to an 

intruding armrest. The Impala was able 

to meet all of the driver injury criteria 

but failed to meet the limits on lower 

spine acceleration and pelvic force for 

the SID–IIs in the rear seat, due to an 

armrest design. As discussed in the 

NPRM, in an MDB test of a 2001 Buick 

Le Sabre equipped with a front seat 

thorax side air bag, the vehicle met all 

the proposed criteria for both the front 

and rear seat dummies. 

3. Lead Time 

A. Oblique Pole Test 

The agency proposed a lead time 

thought to be sufficient to ensure that 

compliance would be practicable, while 

seeking to make sure that the benefits of 

the rule can be realized as soon as 

practicable. The NPRM proposed to 

phase in the upgraded side impact pole 

test requirements. The agency proposed 

to phase in the new test requirement 

beginning approximately four years 

from the date of publication of a final 

rule. The phase-in was proposed to be 

over three years, in accordance with the 

following schedule: 

20 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during the 

production year beginning four years 

after publication of a final rule; 

50 percent of each manufacturer’s 

light vehicles manufactured during the 

production year beginning five years 

after publication of a final rule; 

All vehicles manufactured on or after 

a date six years after publication of a 

final rule. 

NHTSA proposed to include 

provisions under which manufacturers 

can earn credits toward meeting the 

applicable phase-in percentages if they 

meet the new requirements ahead of 

schedule. Alternatives were also 

provided to address the special 

problems faced by manufacturers 

producing limited line vehicles and 

vehicles manufactured in more than one 

stage, and vehicle alterers. Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements for 

manufacturers to administer 

conformance with the phase-in were 

also proposed. 

B. MDB Test 

NHTSA proposed that the upgraded 

MDB test would be effective 

approximately 4 years after publication 

of a final rule. The agency tentatively 

concluded that a phase-in was 

unnecessary because the requirements 

could be met by padding and simple 

redesigns of the armrest area. This 

contrasted with the agency’s belief 

about the vehicle changes entailed by 

the oblique pole test. Comments were 

requested on whether a phase in for the 

MDB test was appropriate. 

b. NPRMs on 49 CFR Part 572 

The agency issued notices of 

proposed rulemaking to add the 

specifications and performance 

requirements for the ES–2re dummy and 

for the SID–IIs dummy into the agency’s 

regulation on anthropomorphic test 

devices (49 CFR part 572). The NPRM 

on the ES–2re dummy was published on 

September 15, 2004 (69 FR 55550; 

Docket 18864), and the NPRM on the 

SID–IIs was published on December 8, 

2004 (69 FR 70947, Docket 18865). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51915 

24 IIHS’s side impact consumer information 

program ranks vehicles based on performance when 

impacted perpendicularly by a moving barrier at 

about 30 mph. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ 

side_test_info.html. 

c. Comment Periods Reopened Until 

April 12, 2005; Request for Comment 

On January 12, 2005, NHTSA 

reopened the comment period for the 

May 17, 2004 NPRM on FMVSS No. 214 

and for the September 15, 2004 NPRM 

adding the ES–2re 50th percentile adult 

male dummy to 49 CFR Part 572 (70 FR 

2105; Dockets 17694 and 18864). That 

action responded to a petition from the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

that requested an additional 8 months to 

submit comments. NHTSA determined 

that a 90-day extension of time was 

sufficient and that an 8-month extension 

was unwarranted and contrary to the 

public interest. The January 2005 

document also requested comments on 

an addendum to an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) relating to the 

NPRM on the oblique pole test. The 

addendum to the IRFA discussed the 

economic impacts of the proposed rule 

on small vehicle manufacturers. The 

comment periods were reopened until 

April 12, 2005. 

Later, the Alliance petitioned to 

extend the comment period for the 

December 8, 2004 NPRM on adding the 

SID–IIs 5th percentile female test 

dummy to 49 CFR Part 572, which was 

scheduled to close on March 8, 2005. 

NHTSA agreed to extend the comment 

period for that NPRM to April 12, 2005, 

to align the comment closing date for 

that NPRM with the comment closing 

dates for the NPRMs on FMVSS No. 214 

and the ES–2re (70 FR 11189; March 8, 

2005; Docket 18865). 

IV. NHTSA 214 Fleet Testing Program 

In 2005, the agency conducted a 214 

fleet testing program, a series of side 

impact crash tests to obtain information 

on how current vehicles performed in 

the oblique pole and MDB tests with the 

SID–IIs and ES–2re test dummies, and, 

in turn, on how the dummies performed 

in the full vehicle crash tests. Fourteen 

vehicle models were tested. Thirteen 

models were evaluated in the pole test, 

10 of these 13 were tested with both the 

SID–IIs (5th percentile female) and the 

ES–2re (50th percentile male) test 

dummies. Three of the 13 were tested 

with just the ES–2re test dummy. Seven 

of the 13 were tested also to the MDB 

tests using the SID–IIs and the ES–2re 

test dummies. One vehicle model was 

tested only to an MDB test using the 

SID–IIs (5th percentile female) test 

dummy. (See Table 3, ‘‘Test Matrix.’’) 

The agency selected vehicles that 

represented different vehicle classes 

comprising the current vehicle fleet. Six 

rated a ‘‘Good’’ or ‘‘Acceptable’’ score in 

IIHS’s side impact consumer rating 

program,24 three rated a ‘‘Poor,’’ and all 

had head curtains or combination side 

impact air bags. Six of the vehicles had 

a combination of both a head curtain air 

bag and an additional torso air bag in 

the front seating positions. Four had 

only a head curtain air bag. Four 

vehicles had a seat-mounted head and 

torso combination air bag system, two of 

which were convertibles. 

TABLE 3.—TEST MATRIX

Vehicles (model year 2005 unless 

noted) 

Side air bag type: 

AC=air curtain; 

Comb=head/chest 

SIAB; 

Th=thorax or chest 

SIAB 

Vehicle class/weight 

Oblique pole FMVSS No. 214 

MDB 

SID–IIs ES–2rd SID–IIs ES–2re 

Toyota Corolla ................................. AC + Th ................. Light PC ......................................... √ √ √ √ 

VW Jetta ......................................... AC + Th ................. Compact PC ................................... √ √ √ √ 

Saturn Ion ....................................... AC .......................... Compact PC ................................... √ √ √ √ 

Honda Accord* ................................ AC + Th ................. Medium .......................................... √ √ √ √ 

Suzuki Forenza ............................... Comb ..................... Compact PC ................................... ................ ................ √ ................

Beetle Convertible ........................... Comb ..................... Medium .......................................... ................ √ ................ ................

Saab 9–3 Convertible ..................... Comb ..................... Medium .......................................... ................ √ ................ ................

Ford 500 .......................................... AC + Th ................. Heavy PC ....................................... √ √ √ √ 

Toyota Sienna* ............................... AC + Th ................. Minivan ........................................... √ √ ................ ................

Subaru Forester .............................. Comb ..................... Small sport utility vehicle (SUV) 

(certified PC) Curb wt=3143 lb 

(medium PC).

√ √ √ √ 

Honda CRV ..................................... AC + Th ................. Small SUV ...................................... √ √ √ √ 

Chevy Colorado (4x2 Ext. Cab) ...... AC .......................... Small Pickup .................................. √ √ ................ ................

Ford Expedition ............................... AC .......................... Large SUV ..................................... √ √ ................ ................

Dodge 2500 (Reg Cab) .................. AC .......................... Large Pickup .................................. ................ √ ................ ................

* 2004 Vehicles. 

** Vehicles were categorized by their curb weight. 

Light passenger car (PC) = (907–1.133 

kg) or (2,000–2,499 lb). 

Compact PC = (1,134–1,360 kg) or 

(2,500–2,999 lb). 

Medium PC = (1,361–1,587 kg) or 

(3,000–3,499 lb). 

Heavy PC = (1,588 kg or more) or 

(3,500 lb or more). 

A detailed summary of the results of 

the test program is set forth in NHTSA’s 

technical report of the test program, 

‘‘NHTSA Fleet Testing for FMVSS No. 

214 Upgrade MY 2004–2005,’’ April 

2006, (Docket 25441, items 9 and 11). 

Key findings of the test program are 

highlighted below. 

Oblique Pole Test With SID–IIs 

As discussed in the test report, 10 of 

the vehicles in the matrix were tested 

with the SID–IIs dummy in the oblique 

pole test. The test results are presented 

in Table 4. Thoracic and abdominal rib 

deflections were monitored. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51916 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

25The Toyota Corolla was also below the IARVs, 

for the data collected. However, the pelvic force 

data were not available in the test. Like the Subaru Forester and Honda CRV, the lower spine 

acceleration was elevated in the test. 

TABLE 4.—OBLIQUE POLE TEST RESULTS—SID–IIS DUMMY

Driver HIC36 Lower spine 

(Gs) 

Pelvic force 

(N) 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Abdominal 

deflection 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Proposed Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) ... 1000 82 ** 5,525 38 45 

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 418 70 *** 47 49 

VW Jetta .............................................................................. 478 54 7876 33 34 

Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 5203 110 5755 32 52 

Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 567 63 10848 31 30 

Ford Five Hundred ............................................................... 1173 92 6542 37 57 

Toyota Sienna* .................................................................... 2019 67 6956 46 58 

Subaru Forester ................................................................... 160 55 4707 31 45 

Honda CRV .......................................................................... 531 68 4670 26 36 

Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab ............................................... 896 135 9387 31 59 

Ford Expedition .................................................................... 5661 96 8249 35 53 

* MY2004. 

** See Section VI.d.4.B of this preamble for a discussion of why we increased the proposed 5,100 N requirement to 5,525 N. 

*** No data. 

Most of the tested vehicles will need 

some design improvements to be 

certified as meeting the injury criteria 

limits for HIC, lower spine acceleration 

and/or pelvic force adopted by this final 

rule. Some vehicles will need more 

redesign than others. Some vehicles 

produced HIC, lower spine acceleration 

and/or pelvic force values that were 

greater than the injury assessment 

reference values (IARVs) of this final 

rule, while others were within the 

values but were close to the margin. For 

purposes of evaluating the current 

performance of these tested vehicles in 

relation to the IARVs of this final rule, 

we identified ‘‘elevated’’ values to be 

those that were within 80 percent of an 

IARV. The Subaru Forester and Honda 

CRV were the only vehicles that were 

below the IARVs,25 but even these 

vehicles had lower spine acceleration 

and/or pelvic loads that were elevated 

(in excess of 80 percent of the IARVs). 

HIC (SID–IIs in the Pole Test) 

Four of the 10 vehicles tested with the 

SID–IIs (40 percent) exceeded HIC 1000: 

the Saturn Ion, Ford Five Hundred, 

Toyota Sienna, and Ford Expedition. 

The Saturn Ion, Ford Expedition, and 

the Toyota Sienna’s side curtain air bag 

deployed but the SID–IIs dummy’s head 

hit the front edge of the curtain’s front 

pocket or tethered portion of the 

curtain, which was not inflated so as to 

cushion the impact. 

The Ford Five Hundred had a head 

curtain and a thorax bag. It appears from 

test film that the Ford Five Hundred’s 

sensor deployed the curtain at 

approximately 85 ms after time zero, 

while the dummy’s head hit the pole at 

the front edge of the curtain at 

approximately 60 ms after time zero. 

The same four vehicles produced 

relatively good HIC scores with the ES–

2re dummy in the oblique pole test. 

Lower Spine Acceleration (SID–IIs in 

the Pole Test) 

The lower spine acceleration readings 

were generally consistent with the SID–

IIs’s rib deflections. Two of the 10 

vehicle tests with the SID–IIs resulted in 

rib deflection measurements exceeding 

38 mm for the thoracic rib (which 

corresponds to a 50 percent risk of AIS 

3+ injury). Six out of 10 exceeded 45 

mm for the abdominal rib (45 mm is 

used by IIHS in its consumer 

information program). In all of these 

tests, the lower spine acceleration 

values were also elevated (exceeding 82 

g or within 80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66 

g)). The 6 tests were of the: 2005 Toyota 

Corolla, 2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford 

Five Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 

2005 Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, 

and the 2005 Ford Expedition. 

Pelvic Force (SID–IIs in the Pole Test) 

Seven of the 10 vehicles exceeded 

5,525 N (one vehicle lost data 

completely). The Honda Accord and the 

Volkswagen (VW) Jetta exceeded 5,525 

N, yet had relatively lower numbers for 

the other injury criteria. 

Oblique Pole Test With ES–2re 

Thirteen tests were performed with 

the ES–2re dummy in the driver’s 

seating position. Data from the tests are 

set forth in Table 5. The data were 

analyzed assuming a 44 mm limit on rib 

deflection and a 2,500 N limit for 

abdominal force. Four vehicles 

produced results that were less than all 

of the injury assessment reference 

values: the VW Jetta, VW Beetle 

convertible, Saab 9–3 convertible and 

the Honda Accord. 

TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS

Driver HIC 36 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

Abdominal 

force (N) 

Pelvic force 

(N) 

Lower 

spine (G’s) 

(monitored) 

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82 

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 473 50 1178 3041 65 

VW Jetta .............................................................................. 652 36 1663 3372 60 

Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 806 50 1494 1585 76 

Honda Accord ...................................................................... 446 31 1397 2463 52 

VW Beetle Convertible ......................................................... 315 37 1018 3815 69 

Saab 93 Convertible ............................................................ 254 40 841 2914 49 

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 422 35 3020 2133 68 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51917 

TABLE 5.—ES–2RE OBLIQUE POLE RESULTS—Continued 

Driver HIC 36 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

Abdominal 

force (N) 

Pelvic force 

(N) 

Lower 

spine (G’s) 

(monitored) 

Toyota Sienna ...................................................................... 667 47 1751 2127 60 

Subaru Forester ................................................................... 2054 43 1377 2291 46 

Honda CRV .......................................................................... 639 50 929 903 53 

Chevy Colorado 4x2 ext cab ............................................... 785 46 2655 3373 90 

Ford Expedition .................................................................... 689 26 6973 2575 75 

Dodge Ram 2500 (GVWR 8800)* ....................................... 5748 47 1846 ** 86 

* Air bag did not deploy. 

** No data. 

HIC (ES–2re in the Pole Test) 

The tests showed that an effective 

inflatable head protection system can be 

successful in reducing HIC. 

Most HIC values were less than HIC 

1,000. An exception was the Subaru 

Forester, the test of which resulted in a 

HIC reading of 2,054. This vehicle had 

a head and thorax combination air bag 

that deployed from the vehicle’s seat. In 

the test, the air bag was pushed 

rearward by the intruding B-pillar and 

door structure. As a result, the dummy’s 

head hit the pole, causing the HIC of 

2,054. 

Another exception was the Dodge 

2500, which is the only heavy duty 

pickup truck with optional side 

curtains. In the pole test, the curtain air 

bag did not deploy, causing the ES–2re 

dummy’s head to hit the pole (HIC 

5,748). In a retest using this vehicle 

model in which the air bags were 

remotely deployed, the HIC was 331. 

Rib Deflection (ES–2re in the Pole Test) 

Table 5 shows that six of the vehicles 

produced chest deflection values greater 

than 44 mm (the Toyota Corolla, Saturn 

Ion, Toyota Sienna, Honda CRV, Chevy 

Colorado extended cab pick up, and the 

Dodge 2500 truck). In another vehicle, 

the Subaru Forester, the ES–2re 

measured 43 mm of chest deflection. 

Out of those seven vehicles, three had 

curtains with thorax bags: the Toyota 

Corolla, Toyota Sienna and Honda CRV. 

The Forester had a combination head/ 

thorax bag. The Ion, Chevy Colorado 

and Dodge 2500 had only a curtain. 

Seven vehicles produced results that 

were under 44 mm (VW Jetta, Honda 

Accord, VW Beetle convertible, Saab 9–

3 convertible, the Ford Five Hundred, 

Subaru Forester, and the Ford 

Expedition). However, the chest 

deflection measures for five of these 

vehicles (VW Jetta, VW Beetle 

convertible, Saab 9–3 convertible, Ford 

Five Hundred, and the Subaru Forester) 

were between 35 and 44 mm (i.e., were 

within 80 percent of 44 mm). The VW 

Jetta, Honda Accord, and Ford Five 

Hundred had a curtain and torso bag. 

The VW Beetle and Saab 9–3, in 

addition to the Subaru Forester, had 

combo bags. The Ford Expedition had 

only a curtain. 

Lower Spine Acceleration (ES–2re in 

the Pole Test) 

The ES–2re’s lower spine acceleration 

readings in the pole test were relatively 

consistent with the dummy’s rib 

deflection readings. 

In eleven of the vehicles that 

measured high rib deflections exceeding 

44 mm or that were within 80 percent 

of 44 mm, 5 of these had lower spine 

acceleration values that were also 

elevated (exceeding 82 g or within 80 

percent of 82 g). The 5 vehicles were 

the: Saturn Ion, VW Beetle, Ford Five 

Hundred, Chevy Colorado and the 

Dodge 2500. The Toyota Corolla had an 

elevated lower spine acceleration of 65 

g. The lower spine acceleration of the 

ES–2re was elevated (75 g) in the test of 

the Ford Expedition when the dummy’s 

rib deflection was low (26 mm). 

However, the lower spine could have 

been detecting the high abdominal force 

reading on the ES–2re in that test (6,973 

N). 

Abdominal Force (ES–2re in the Pole 

Test) 

Three vehicles produced abdominal 

force readings that exceeded 2,500 N 

(the Ford Five Hundred, Chevy 

Colorado and the Ford Expedition). The 

Chevy Colorado and Ford Expedition 

did not have torso air bags. 

MDB Tests With SID–IIs 

We conducted eight FMVSS No. 214 

MDB tests with the SID–IIs in both the 

driver’s seating position and in the left 

rear occupant’s seating position. Data 

from the tests are set forth in Table 6 

(driver) and Table 7 (rear passenger). 

The data show that all but three 

vehicles produced dummy 

measurements that were below the 

proposed IARVs for both the driver and 

rear occupant. The SID–IIs in the driver 

seat of the Saturn Ion test measured a 

8,993 N pelvic force. The Saturn Ion 

was not equipped with a thoracic side 

bag. It appears from the test film that the 

dummy’s pelvis impacted a rigid area at 

the front part of the Ion’s armrest. The 

SID–IIs in the rear seat of the Honda 

Accord measured 6,917 N in pelvic 

force, and the SID–IIs in the rear seat of 

the Suzuki Forenza measured a 6,557 N 

pelvic force. 

In tests of 4 of the vehicles with the 

SID–IIs in the rear, the monitored rib 

deflection measurements were high 

(over 38 mm for the thoracic rib and 45 

mm for the abdominal rib), and in 2 

vehicles they were within 80 percent of 

38 mm or 45 mm. 

TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER

Driver HIC36 Lower spine 

(Gs) 

Pelvic force 

(N) 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Abdominal 

deflection 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 82 5525 38 45 

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 78 59 4655 17 26 

VW Jetta .............................................................................. 46 30 2639 12 18 

Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 189 53 8993 19 39 

Suzuki Forenza .................................................................... 69 53 4948 27 27 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51918 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—DRIVER—Continued 

Driver HIC36 Lower spine 

(Gs) 

Pelvic force 

(N) 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Abdominal 

deflection 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 104 50 4150 20 22 

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 46 31 2140 16 25 

Subaru Forrester .................................................................. 43 37 3066 11 11 

Honda CRV .......................................................................... 38 32 1350 16 8 

* MY 2004. 

TABLE 7.—MDB TEST RESULTS USING THE SID–IIS—LEFT REAR PASSENGER

Passenger HIC36 Lower spine 

(Gs) 

Pelvic force 

(N) 

Thorax 

deflections 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Abdominal 

deflections 

(mm) 

(monitored) 

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 82 5525 38 45 

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 330 57 3182 35 33 

VW Jetta .............................................................................. 103 52 3026 49 43 

Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 220 73 3964 47 52 

Suzuki Forenza .................................................................... 773 73 6557 41 46 

Honda Accord* ..................................................................... 298 57 6917 30 32 

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 216 42 2925 45 46 

Subaru Forrester .................................................................. 150 43 3572 24 26 

Honda CRV .......................................................................... 107 56 3149 37 40 

* MY 2004. 

MDB Test With ES–2re 

We conducted seven FMVSS No. 214 

MDB tests with the ES–2re in both the 

driver’s seating position and in the left 

rear occupant’s seating position. The 

vehicle models were the same ones that 

were tested with the SID–IIs in the MDB 

tests, above. Data from the tests are set 

forth in Tables 8 and 9. The dummy 

responses were low relative to the 

IARVs. 

TABLE 8.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—DRIVER

Driver HIC36 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

Abdominal 

force 

(N) 

Pubic symph. 

force 

(N) 

Lower spine 

(G’s) 

(monitored) 

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82 

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 73 25 722 3223 40 

VW Jetta .............................................................................. 101 26 733 1969 28 

Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 110 29 1524 2431 52 

Honda Accord ...................................................................... 109 37 557 1983 38 

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 66 25 1006 1176 35 

Subaru Forrester .................................................................. 44 21 598 1694 33 

Honda CRV .......................................................................... 100 35 524 1137 31 

TABLE 9.—ES–2RE MDB TEST RESULTS—REAR PASSENGER

Passenger HIC36 

Thorax 

deflection 

(mm) 

Abdominal 

force 

(N) 

Pubic symph. 

force 

(N) 

Lower spine 

(G’s) 

(monitored) 

Proposed IARVs .................................................................. 1000 44 2500 6000 82 

Toyota Corolla ...................................................................... 248 20 1355 2771 58 

VW Jetta .............................................................................. 211 29 1378 2542 53 

Saturn Ion ............................................................................ 168 27 1511 2275 47 

Honda Accord ...................................................................... 223 23 810 2405 53 

Ford 500 ............................................................................... 213 25 1649 1407 44 

Subaru Forrester .................................................................. 226 23 967 1948 35 

Honda CRV .......................................................................... 126 5 1192 1847 33 

General Observations 

NHTSA has made the following 

general observations from the agency’s 

214 fleet testing program. 

• Overall, currently installed side 

impact head protection systems (HPS) 

consisting of an air curtain or 

combination head/thorax air bag were 

effective in mitigating head 

accelerations, resulting in low to 

moderate HIC readings for the ES–2re 

and SID–IIs dummies in both MDB and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51919 

26The NPRMs proposing to add the ES–2re and 

SID–IIs dummy specifications to 49 CFR part 572 

each received comments separately from the 

FMVSS No. 214 NPRM. Those comments are 

addressed in full in final rules that were published 

separately from this document and are discussed 

here to the extent relevant to the FMVSS No. 214 

final rule. 

27The Alliance is made up of BMW group, 

DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General 

Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, 

and Volkswagen. 

28AIAM Technical Affairs Committee members 

are: Aston Martin, Ferrari/Maserati, Honda, 

Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Nissan, Peugeot, Renault, 

Subaru, Suzuki, Bosch, Delphi, Denso, and Hitachi. 

29WorldSID is considered by industry to be the 

next-generation 50th percentile male side impact 

dummy. It was developed by industry 

representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan and 

by the European and Japanese governments (see 

Docket No. 2000–17252). This future dummy is 

believed by its developers to have better biofidelity 

than existing dummies, and is intended to better 

predict a wider range of injury potential in side 

impact testing than current dummies. 

oblique pole tests. Vehicles equipped 

with well-designed combo bags, and air 

curtains that extend toward the A-pillar 

when inflated, generally were the better 

performers in the oblique pole tests. 

• Some currently installed side 

impact HPS that provide relatively low 

head protection response values to the 

SID–IIs driver dummy in the MDB test 

do not necessarily provide the same low 

level head responses in the oblique pole 

test. 

• In the oblique pole tests, vehicles 

that provided adequate protection for 

the ES–2re do not necessarily provide 

the same level of protection for the SID–

IIs. The data show the importance of 

using more than one size test dummy to 

evaluate the overall performance of a 

vehicle in providing head protection to 

occupants in the oblique pole test mode. 

• In oblique pole tests using the SID–

IIs, most vehicles produced pelvic force 

readings above the proposed criterion. 

In the MDB tests with the SID–IIs seated 

in the driver’s position, only one vehicle 

produced a pelvic force greater than 

5,525 N. All other vehicles subjected to 

the MDB test with the SID–IIs seated in 

the driver’s position had pelvic force 

readings below 5,525 N. 

• The SID–IIs in the rear seats of 

vehicles subjected to the MDB test had 

elevated thoracic and/or abdominal rib 

deflections that were not observed in 

MDB tests of those same vehicles with 

the ES–2re in the rear seats. 

• The results of oblique pole tests in 

which the air curtain did not deploy or 

deployed later in the event indicate 

needed air bag sensor improvement. 

• The convertibles equipped with 

head/thorax combination air bags 

produced measurements that were 

below the proposed injury criteria, 

demonstrating the effectiveness and 

feasibility of these HPS for convertible 

body types. 

• Some vehicles that received ‘‘Good’’

or ‘‘Acceptable’’ ratings from IIHS for 

the rear passenger exceeded proposed 

IARVs in our MDB tests using the SID–

IIs. 

• The vehicles that were tested with 

the ES–2re that produced dummy 

readings below the proposed IARVs in 

the pole and MDB tests were: 2004 

Honda Accord, 2005 Volkswagen Jetta, 

2005 Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, 

and the 2005 Saab 93 Convertible. The 

vehicles that were tested with the SID–

IIs that produced readings below the 

proposed IARVs in the pole and MDB 

tests were: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 2005 

Subaru Forester and the 2005 Honda 

CRV. 

V. Summary of Comments 

This section provides an overview of 

the significant comments to the 

proposal to upgrade FMVSS No. 214. 

All together, NHTSA received 35 

comments to the proposal to upgrade 

FMVSS No. 214.26 Commenters 

included—

Vehicle manufacturers and/or vehicle 

manufacturer associations (the Alliance 

of Automobile Manufacturers 

(Alliance 27), American Honda Motor 

Co., Inc. (Honda), the Association of 

International Automobile 

Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM 28), Nissan 

North America, Inc. (Nissan), Lotus 

Engineering (Lotus), Ferrari SpA 

(Ferrari), Maserati SpA (Maserati), the 

Recreation Vehicle Industry 

Association, Inc. (RVIA), Specialty 

Equipment Market Association (SEMA), 

the National Mobility Equipment 

Dealers Association (NMEDA) and the 

National Truck Equipment Association 

(NTEA)); 

Air bag equipment suppliers (Autoliv 

and TRW); 

Research groups (IIHS), the 

International Harmonized Research 

Activities (IHRA) Side Impact Working 

Group (SIWG); 

Consumer groups (Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), 

Public Citizen, and Consumers Union); 

And private individuals. 

Overview of the Comments 

The vehicle manufacturers supported 

enhancing side impact protection but 

had concerns about how the proposed 

rulemaking would comport with the 

initiatives they have already undertaken 

or agreed to undertake towards that goal 

(e.g., the ‘‘voluntary commitment’’ of 

major automakers in the U.S. to phase 

in side air bags for drivers in vehicles 

up to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) GVWR). The 

vehicle manufacturers strongly 

supported the incorporation of 

WorldSID 29 into FMVSS No. 214, 

marked by the Alliance submitting, 

concurrently with its comment on the 

FMVSS No. 214 NPRM, a petition for 

rulemaking asking NHTSA to initiate 

rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID 

into Part 572 and to use the dummy in 

the upgrade of FMVSS No. 214 (NHTSA 

Docket 17252). The Alliance further 

suggested that, prior to use of WorldSID, 

the ES–2 dummy should be used 

(without the rib extensions), and only to 

the extent of protecting the head. The 

Alliance believed that there was no 

safety need for the 5th percentile SID–

IIs adult female crash test dummy in the 

proposed pole and MDB tests. No 

commenter supported the floating rib 

guide modifications proposed by 

NHTSA for the SID–IIs dummy. 

Air bag supplier Autoliv supported 

use of the ES–2re in tests and supported 

use of the 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed 

in the oblique pole test. Autoliv stated 

that NHTSA was correct in its belief that 

an oblique pole test will encourage 

larger bags than a perpendicular pole 

test. Air bag supplier TRW believed that 

adoption of the NPRM will result in 

substantial reductions in injuries and 

severity in side impacts. TRW stated 

that technology exists to meet the 

proposed requirements of the NPRM 

within the timeframe and that it saw no 

major issues with the proposed test 

conditions. TRW believed that systems 

designed to meet the proposed 

requirements could have acceptable 

performance in out-of-position 

situations. 

Vehicle manufacturers raised issues 

or had questions about aspects of 

conducting the proposed test procedure 

for the oblique pole test. The Alliance 

supported the 75-degree angle of the 

test, but suggested that the test speed 

should be bounded at 26 km/h to 32 

km/h (16 to 20 mph) (the NPRM 

proposed that the test would be 

conducted at any speed up to and 

including 32 km/h (20 mph)). Maserati 

and Ferrari supported the 90 degree 29 

km/h (18 mph) pole test used in the 

European New Car Assessment Program 

(Euro NCAP). The IHRA SIWG 

expressed concern about the NPRM 

preempting the outcome of international 

deliberations of the SIWG regarding the 

side impact pole test procedure. Vehicle 

manufacturers also commented on 

technical aspects of the test procedure, 

such as how the vehicle seat should be 

positioned along the seat track, where 

on the pole the vehicle should impact; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51920 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

30Submitted under a request for confidential 

treatment. 

31http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf91/ 

325474_web.pdf 

and how the test dummies and head 

restraints should be positioned. 

Consumer groups generally supported 

the proposed rule, but suggested that the 

agency should adopt further 

requirements. Advocates, Consumers 

Union, and Public Citizen wanted more 

stringent injury criteria limits than those 

proposed (e.g., HIC of 800), and 

recommended extending the oblique 

pole test to rear seating positions. 

Comments were also received on the 

types of vehicles that should be 

excluded from the pole test, and on the 

lead time needed to comply with the 

proposed oblique pole test and with the 

changes to the MDB test. Nissan 

submitted test data 30 of one small 

vehicle and two mid-size vehicles tested 

according to the proposed test 

procedures for the oblique pole test and 

MDB test. The commenter said that the 

data indicate that curtain air bags may 

be needed in some vehicles to meet the 

pole test requirements, and that some 

vehicles could need a full redesign of 

the door structure, including the 

modification or addition of air bags, to 

meet the MDB test requirements. Nissan 

requested that the MDB test 

requirements be phased-in along the 

same schedule that would be 

implemented for the pole test, and that 

both phase-ins be over a 4-year rather 

than 3-year period. 

Comments were also received on 

NHTSA’s Preliminary Economic 

Assessment (PEA), which analyzed the 

costs and benefits and other impacts of 

the proposed rule. Maserati and Ferrari 

believed that NHTSA underestimated 

their costs to comply with the proposed 

rule. The Alliance believed that: In 

estimating benefits, we should have 

identified as the target population all 

potentially injured occupants of 

relatively modern vehicles for whom the 

countermeasures are designed; that the 

proposed changes to the MDB test 

should have a benefits estimate; that we 

did not demonstrate the practicability of 

meeting the proposed test requirements, 

in that ‘‘no one single vehicle has been 

subjected to the entire suite of proposed 

crash tests’’; and that the principles set 

forth in the Data Quality Act were not 

met (the commenter believed that some 

of the data in the PEA had errors and 

that the PEA contained some 

unsupported assumptions). The 

Specialty Equipment Market 

Association (SEMA) stated that 

‘‘aftermarket equipment manufacturers 

and other entities that diagnose, service, 

repair and upgrade motor vehicles’’ may 

be affected by the final rule if their 

installed products interact with 

equipment or systems used by vehicle 

manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No. 

214 requirements. 

In October 2006, to estimate the costs 

and benefits of the final rule, NHTSA 

sent letters asking vehicle 

manufacturers to submit voluntarily 

information on the installation of side 

air bags in present and future vehicles. 

Information was received from seven 

manufacturers, whose information 

related to about 90 percent of light 

vehicle sales. 

VI. Response to the Comments 

a. Critical Decisions 

We made several critical decisions in 

our analysis of the comments. These 

decisions were critical in defining the 

safety problem, the test dummies that 

should be used to address the safety 

problem, and the crash tests that should 

be used to evaluate measures to 

ameliorate the safety problem. 

Specifically, these decisions pertained 

to: 

Which test dummy should be used to 

represent the mid-size male; 

Whether the standard should limit 

more than HIC; and 

Whether FMVSS No. 214 should use 

a small female dummy in the pole and 

MDB tests. 

These decisions are discussed in this 

section. 

1. 50th Percentile Male Dummy 

The Alliance, AIAM, IIHS, Honda, 

Maserati, Ferrari, Advocates, and 

Autoliv commented on the proposal to 

use the ES–2re test dummy to represent 

the mid-size male occupant. Generally, 

the vehicle manufacturers opposed the 

ES–2re, preferring instead the 

WorldSID. In its petition for rulemaking, 

the Alliance asked NHTSA to consider 

adopting the WorldSID into Part 572 

and using the dummy in the phase-in of 

the pole test requirements.31 The 

Alliance stated that WorldSlD would 

further enhance occupant protection 

and the international harmonization of 

safety standards. 

However, other commenters 

acknowledged that WorldSID is not yet 

ready for use in a safety standard. IIHS 

said that while WorldSID might be more 

biofidelic than any other existing 

dummy, ‘‘developmental testing is not 

complete on the new, state-of-the art 

dummy, and therefore the time is not 

ripe for its inclusion in rulemaking.’’

IIHS did not believe that WorldSID was 

necessary in order for the agency to 

increase the requirements for protection 

of the midsize male in side impacts. In 

this interim period while the WorldSID 

continues to be evaluated, IIHS 

supported the ES–2re over the SID and 

SID–H3 dummies because of the 

improved biofidelity of the ES–2re and 

the more sensitive information the ES–

2re can provide on rib deflection 

characteristics and pelvic loading. 

Autoliv also supported the ES–2re’s 

replacing the SID–H3 dummy, based on 

the improved biofidelity of the proposed 

dummy and the tendency toward closer 

harmonization with other global test 

requirements. ‘‘Using the same test 

dummy globally would allow 

manufacturers to focus on optimizing 

the air bag design to the performance 

requirements of the more biofidelic 

dummy.’’

A. We Are Denying the Alliance’s 

WorldSID Petition 

We are denying the Alliance’s petition 

for rulemaking because the WorldSID is 

not ready for use in Federal regulations, 

nor has it been established that it has 

achieved a completed design allowing a 

full assessment of the dummy’s 

potential use in FMVSS No. 214. The 

WorldSID committee has been 

modifying the dummy’s design, 

including modifications to the dummy’s 

ribs (June/July 2006), to address 

durability and other problems that 

NHTSA found during the agency’s 

evaluation of the dummy. 

NHTSA has been working with the 

WorldSID committee to evaluate the 

functionality of the dummy as a 

potential research and compliance test 

device. We undertook a three-phase 

program to evaluate the dummy’s 

repeatability, durability and usefulness. 

The program consisted of: (a) 

Laboratory-based anthropometry, mass, 

instrumentation and extensive 

subsystem evaluations; (b) sled tests; 

and (c) vehicle crash tests. During phase 

(a) of the program (the subsystem 

evaluation), we observed cracking of rib 

damping material, which led to several 

modifications of the rib design by the 

WorldSID committee. The committee 

sent the revised ribs to NHTSA in 

August 2006 for evaluation in the 

agency test program. During evaluation 

of the rib modifications, concerns over 

the pelvis design arose when it was 

observed that the pelvis wing contacted 

on onboard data acquisition component 

mounted below the lumbar spine. The 

agency and the WorldSID committee are 

presently evaluating modifications to 

the pelvis design to eliminate this 

problem. 

Once the pelvis modifications can be 

evaluated and the internal contact issue 

has been resolved, NHTSA will resume 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51921 

32The suitability of WorldSID for use in FMVSS 

No. 214 and as a part 572 test device would 

ultimately be determined through notice-andcomment rulemaking, in accordance with statutory 

criteria. 

33NPRM at 69 FR 55550, September 15, 2004, 

Docket 18864; final rule at 71 FR 75304, December 

14, 2006, Docket 25441. 

34The commenters neither provided reference to 

a published report nor provided supporting data 

related to the claim that the overall ISO score for 

the ES–2re is 4.3. The absence of foundation for the 

comment limits our ability to respond. 

35The ES–2re also has improved injury 

assessment capability compared to the SID and 

SID–H3 mid-size male dummies. The ES–2re 

dummy will enhance the protection afforded by 

vehicles to the affecting population, especially 

those represented by a 50th percentile male 

dummy. Thus, this final rule adopts the ES–2re and 

not the SID or the SID–H3 dummies. 

evaluation of the modifications to the 

ribs. However, because we cannot know 

at this point what the outcome of the 

evaluation will be and because we will 

not know the outcome for a 

considerable period of time, we are 

denying the Alliance’s petition. If the 

evaluation indicates that the WorldSID 

design is complete, the agency will then 

consider whether rulemaking should be 

undertaken 32 to possibly incorporate 

use of the dummy as a test device 

during the phase-in period of the 

requirements adopted today. In the 

meantime, advancements in occupant 

protection can be achieved today by 

upgrading the side impact dummy used 

in FMVSS No. 214 to the ES–2re, 

without waiting for a future test 

dummy. 

B. The Side Impact Dummy Should Be 

Upgraded Now to the ES–2re Without 

Further Delay 

The technology of the ES–2re 

represents a significant advance over the 

SID dummy. The ES–2re has enhanced 

injury assessment capabilities compared 

to devices existing today, which allows 

for a fuller assessment of the types and 

magnitudes of the injuries occurring in 

side impacts and of the efficacy of 

countermeasures in improving occupant 

protection. The ES–2re dummy has 

provisions for instrumentation that can 

assess the potential for head injury (it 

measures the resultant head 

acceleration, which is used to calculate 

the Head Injury Criterion (HIC)) and 

thoracic injuries in terms of rib 

deflections and spine and rib 

accelerations. Chest deflection has been 

shown to be the best predictor of 

thoracic injuries in low-speed side 

impact crashes. It is a better injury risk 

measure than TTI(d) (a chest 

acceleration-based criterion measured 

by SID). The ES–2re can also assess the 

risk of abdominal injuries through three 

load cells to assess the magnitude of 

lateral and oblique forces, and the risk 

of pubic symphysis injuries by way of 

load cell measurements, as well as 

pelvis acceleration. 

The more advanced test dummy 

makes possible a more complete 

assessment of vehicle performance in 

side impacts, which, together with 

appropriate injury assessment criteria, 

will lead to greatly enhanced side 

impact protection for occupants. In an 

MDB test described in the May 2004 

NPRM (69 FR at 28010), the ES–2re 

detected a high abdominal force in the 

Chevrolet Impala at the dummy’s 

abdominal area that was caused by an 

intruding armrest. Because the SID does 

not measure abdominal force, this 

potential injury risk will be newly 

detected by the ES–2re. Accordingly, 

this final rule adopts the ES–2re for the 

pole test and for testing the front seat of 

vehicles in FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test. 

C. The ES–2re Is an Improvement Over 

the ES–2 

The Alliance supported the ES–2 as a 

temporary alternative test device, 

pending the availability of WorldSID. 

The Alliance supported the ES–2 

because the dummy is already 

implemented in both EuroNCAP and the 

UN ECE-regulation 95.02 Supplement 1, 

i.e., ‘‘at least the ES–2 is harmonized 

with Europe and already in widespread 

use.’’ The Alliance stated that OSRP 

gave the ES–2 a biofidelity rating of 4.6 

and the ES–2re an overall rating of 4.3 

using the ISO-based ranking. (In the ISO 

ranking system, a dummy with a higher 

value is considered more biofidelic than 

one with a lower value.) 

The ES–2re is more appropriate for 

use in FMVSS No. 214 than the ES–2 

dummy. As explained in the May 2004 

NPRM and in the rulemaking 

incorporating the ES–2re into 49 CFR 

part 572,33 the ES–2 dummy has a 

deficiency that limits its usefulness in 

FMVSS No. 214. The agency determined 

that, in a number of vehicle crash tests, 

the back plate of the ES–2’s upper torso 

grabbed into the seat back of the vehicle, 

which lowered the rib deflections 

measured by the dummy. (‘‘Design, 

Development, and Evaluation of the ES–

2re Side Crash Test Dummy,’’ May 

2004, NHTSA Docket No. 17694–11.) 

This ‘‘back plate grabbing’’ problem 

has long existed in the ES–2 line of 

dummies. Although efforts were 

undertaken to address the problem in 

dummies preceding the ES–2, the back 

plate grabbing problem has continued 

with the ES–2. Back plate grabbing has 

been seen within the ES–2 in the nongovernmental European New Car 

Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) on 

side impact. EuroNCAP accounts for the 

problem by adjusting downward the 

consumer rating scores of vehicles when 

back plate grabbing is deemed to have 

occurred. 

The ES–2re has rib extensions that 

solve the back plate grabbing problem of 

the ES–2. The rib extensions provide a 

continuous loading surface that nearly 

encircles the thorax and encloses the 

posterior gap of the ES–2 ribcage that 

was responsible for the ‘‘grabbing’’

effects. Test data show that the rib 

extensions reduced the back plate 

grabbing force to insignificant amounts 

in vehicle side impact tests that had 

previously yielded large back plate 

loads with the ES–2. The rib extensions 

did not affect rib deflection responses in 

tests of vehicles that had not originally 

yielded high back plate loads. 

The biofidelity, repeatability, 

reproducibility, and other aspects of the 

ES–2re are discussed at length in the 

agency’s December 14, 2006 final rule 

adopting the ES–2re into 49 CFR part 

572 (see Docket 25441). With regard to 

Toyota’s and the Alliance’s comment 34

that the rib extensions reduced the ISObased biofidelity assessment of the ES–

2 from 4.6 to 4.3, or from ‘‘fair’’ to 

‘‘marginal,’’ we conclude that the 

reduced ISO rating is an acceptable 

outcome of having the rib extensions. 

The back plate loading problem of the 

ES–2 renders the ES–2 non-lifelike. If 

the rib extensions reduce slightly the 

ISO biofidelity rating but enables 

NHTSA to use a dummy that has the 

measurement capabilities of the ES–2 

and no back plate loading problem, we 

conclude that the lower rating is 

acceptable. We note that the ISO rating 

represents an improvement over the 

SID, which received a rating of 2.3 

(Byrnes, et al., ‘‘ES–2 Dummy 

Biomechanical Responses,’’ 2002, Stapp 

Car Crash Journal, Vol. 46, #2002–22–

0014, p. 353). The ES–2re biofidelity 

rating also compares favorably to that of 

the SID–H3, which received an overall 

rating of 3.8. Both the SID and SID–H3 

have performed well in driving the 

installation of life-saving 

countermeasures that have substantially 

improved the safety of occupants in side 

impacts.35

In short, we cannot accept the ES–2 

test dummy because of the back plate 

loading problem. With the rib 

extensions of the ES–2re, the back plate 

loading problem is solved. The ES–2re 

will enhance levels of side impact 

protection provided by FMVSS No. 214. 

The enhancements will be seen in 

vehicles produced in the near term, 

regardless of the future assessment of 

WorldSID. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51922 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

D. The ES–2re Should Measure More 

Than HIC 

The Alliance suggested that the midsize male dummy in the upgraded 

requirements of FMVSS No. 214 should 

measure only HIC. While supporting the 

ES–2 over the ES–2re, the Alliance 

stated that both test dummies have 

design features that affect the dummies’

thoracic responses and the resulting rib 

deflection measurements. According to 

the commenter, the ‘‘limited stroke 

piston/cylinder mechanism’’ of the 

dummies can bind in a lateral impact, 

and the ‘‘binding potential is further 

compounded as the lateral impact 

becomes more oblique.’’

The Alliance also stated that both the 

ES–2 and ES–2re dummies incorporate 

a shoulder design that makes the 

kinematics of the dummy unlike that of 

a cadaver. The commenter stated that 

the human shoulder compresses inward 

and moves slightly rearward in impacts 

from the front or side, while the 

dummies’ shoulders are designed to 

rotate forward, preventing the arm from 

interacting with intruding structures. 

The Alliance stated, ‘‘In full-scale 

vehicle tests, the WorldSID shoulder 

deflects laterally inward replicating a 

more human like response.’’

Additionally, the Alliance believed 

that the ES–2 and ES–2re dummies—

are too narrow through the abdomen and 

pelvis and do not represent the 

anthropometry of either the U.S. or world 

populations. Also, in full-scale tests 

conducted by the OSRP, the ES–2 measured 

abdominal forces below the Injury 

Assessment Reference Values (IARV), while 

the WorldSID measured abdominal 

deflections above the IARV. This indicates 

that the ES–2 abdominal region is too narrow 

to properly interact with intruding vehicle 

structures and is inadequately instrumented, 

causing it to erroneously miss a potential risk 

of abdominal injury. The WorldSID can 

better assess the risk of abdominal injury 

because its anthropometry better matches 

that of the human population and it is 

equipped to measure abdominal deflection. 

Because the Alliance believed there 

are deficiencies with the ES–2, the 

commenter said that NHTSA should just 

require manufacturers to meet a head 

protection criterion, and not criteria 

assessing injury to the thorax, abdomen 

or pelvis. 

We are denying this request. Our 

analysis of the thoracic response of the 

ES–2re demonstrated that the dummy’s 

thoracic responses provided valid data. 

We analyzed crash data from oblique 

and perpendicular pole tests of two 

vehicles: A 1999 Maxima and a 2001 

Saturn. The vehicles were not equipped 

with side air bag systems. The rib 

deflections of the ES–2re in the driver’s 

seating position were almost identical in 

the oblique and perpendicular pole 

tests. The rib deflections of the 

dummies were consistent in time and 

were of similar magnitude. There was 

no indication of flat-topping, binding or 

distortion of the deflection signal due to 

oblique loading. In addition, T1 driver 

lateral acceleration was consistent and 

did not show differences between 

oblique and perpendicular impacts. (See 

‘‘Lateral vs. Oblique Impacts of the ES–

2 Dummy in Pole and MDB Tests,’’

April 2006, a copy of which is in Docket 

25441). 

Both the lower spine accelerations 

(T12) and the summed abdominal forces 

for the driver ES–2re were higher in the 

oblique pole test configuration. 

However, the oblique pole test was run 

at a higher impact speed than the 

perpendicular test (20 mph versus 18 

mph), which likely increased the 

measurements. Also, in the oblique pole 

test, the lower part of the dummy torso 

appears to be loaded earlier in the crash 

event than in a perpendicular test, 

which indicates that the T12 and 

abdominal forces could be higher 

because initial loading is more through 

the lower part of the torso. 

We also analyzed the measurements 

of the ES–2re in FMVSS No. 214 MDB 

tests of a 2001 Ford Focus, 2002 

Chevolet Impala equipped with a combo 

head/thorax side air bag for the driver, 

and a 2004 Honda Accord equipped 

with a thorax bag. Overall, the driver rib 

deflections were higher than the 

deflections for the rear passenger 

dummy. However, a different loading 

environment caused the lower rib 

deflections for the ES–2re in the rear 

seat as compared to the driver. Rib 

deflections showed a slow rise, and the 

peaks occurred about 10 milliseconds 

later than those of the driver dummy. 

The loading duration was also 

considerably longer. The passenger rib 

deflections were consistently lower 

towards the bottom of the ribcage. Id. 

For the Focus, the driver and 

passenger T12 accelerations were 

comparable. For the Impala and Accord, 

the rear passenger T12 acceleration was 

larger than that of the driver dummy. 

This difference could be attributed to 

the fact that both the Impala and Accord 

had a thorax side air bag for the driver 

position and none for the rear passenger 

position. 

The data from the tests did not show 

a sensitivity to oblique loading in the 

dummy’s abdomen. The passenger 

abdominal force for the Impala was very 

large compared to the driver abdominal 

force, but this was due primarily to large 

structural intrusions (the test film shows 

the arm rest intruding into the dummy 

in the MDB test). This indicates a 

localized loading through the abdomen 

for the Impala passenger (resulting in an 

off-loading condition for the chest and, 

thus, much lower rib deflection 

measurements as compared to the driver 

dummy). For the Accord, the passenger 

abdominal force was larger than the 

driver abdominal force, but the 

difference could be attributed to the side 

air bag in the driver position. 

The Alliance contended that the ES–

2re’s shoulder has a biomechanical flaw 

in that the shoulder moves forward 

relative to the rest of the dummy, while, 

according to the commenter, the 

WorldSID dummy’s shoulder moves 

rearward. The Alliance believes that a 

rearward motion is consistent with that 

exhibited by post mortem human 

subjects (PMHS) in rigid impactor tests. 

The commenter did not demonstrate the 

relevance to this rulemaking of 

movement of the dummy’s shoulder 

frontward or rearward. Use of the 

dummy in vehicle crash tests has 

indicated no detrimental effects due to 

shoulder design, such as rib flat-topping 

or distortion of signals, showing that the 

shoulder has reached its limit for range 

of motion or has otherwise performed 

unacceptably due to a forward motion of 

the clavicles. 

In conclusion, the data show that 

there are no deficiencies with the ES–

2re that justify limiting its injury 

assessment to that of HIC only. The data 

show that there is virtually no effect due 

to oblique loading in the driver ES–2re 

deflection readings in oblique pole tests 

as compared to perpendicular pole 

impacts. The data also do not 

demonstrate an indication of sensitivity 

to oblique loading in MDB tests. To the 

contrary, the test data from the Impala 

test show that the abdominal response 

of the ES–2re in the rear passenger 

position in the MDB test detected 

critical loading by intruding vehicle 

structures at the lower torso level. 

Further discussion of the agency’s 

response to comments about the 

biofidelity of the ES–2re can be found 

in the December 14, 2006 49 CFR Part 

572 final rule on the ES–2re (see Docket 

25441). 

Anthropomorphic test devices are 

constantly evolving and advancing due 

in part to worldwide research efforts 

toward improving the biofidelity, 

durability and injury-measurement 

capabilities of the test devices. Adopting 

the ES–2re and the injury assessment 

reference values associated with the risk 

of injury to an occupant’s thorax, 

abdomen and pelvis will enhance the 

safety of occupants in side impacts. In 

a NASS study of side impact crashes, it 

was estimated that between 8.5 percent 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51923 

36Samaha, R.S., Elliot, D., ‘‘NHTSA Side Impact 

Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test 

Procedures,’’ supra. 

37The commenter performed an analysis of 1990–

2002 NASS CDS side crashes with a lateral deltaV range of 12–25 mph, involving model years of 

1990 or newer vehicles in non-rollover side impacts 

(nearside front-outboard occupants of age 12 years 

or older with a fatality or known MAIS, and no total 

ejections). 

38The Alliance believed that the 5th percentile 

adult female dummy represented occupants only of 

heights of 47 to 61 inches. 39Lateral delta-V range of 12–25 mph, model 

years of 1990 or newer vehicles, non-rollover side 

impacts, nearside front-outboard occupants of age 

12 years or older. 40 2001 FARS nearside non-rollover fatalities, 

model year 1995 and newer vehicles struck vehicle. 

41The slight differences in distributions in Table 

10 of this preamble and those of Table 1 of the 

NPRM (69 FR at 27993) are due to new runs of the 

data and minor differences in the definition of 

‘‘other’’ vehicle types. 

42NASS CDS has detailed data on a 

representative, random sample of thousands of 

minor, serious, and fatal crashes. Field research 

teams located at Primary Sampling Units across the 

country study about 5,000 crashes a year involving 

passenger cars, light trucks, vans, and utility 

vehicles. 

and 21.8 percent of all AIS 3+ injuries 

are to the abdomen of restrained near 

side front seat occupants.36 The 

important gains in occupant protection 

that can be achieved by the ES–2re 

should not be delayed or lost on the 

grounds that a more advanced test 

dummy may be available in the future. 

2. The 5th Percentile Female Dummy 

A. The 5th Percentile Adult Female 

Dummy Is an Integral Part of This 

Upgrade 

The Alliance suggested that NHTSA 

should incorporate only a 50th 

percentile male test dummy in both the 

pole and MDB tests and completely 

forego use of the 5th percentile female 

dummy in the final rule. The 

commenter believed that the agency did 

not provide data showing that realworld safety will be improved by use of 

the 5th percentile dummy ‘‘beyond the 

benefits provided by the industry’s 

front-to-side voluntary commitment and 

the IIHS side impact rating test.’’

i. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy in 

the Pole Test 

According to the Alliance, crash 

data 37 demonstrate that narrow object 

side impacts are ‘‘far more likely to 

involve 50th percentile-male-sized 

occupants than 5th percentile-femalesized occupants.’’ 38 According to the 

Alliance, only 4.7 percent of nearside 

front outboard occupant crashes 

involved a tree or pole impact, and only 

0.28 percent of nearside front outboard 

occupant crashes with trees or poles 

involved occupants with a height of 47 

to 61 inches. Therefore, the Alliance 

argued, only the 50th percentile adult 

male dummy is needed in the pole test. 

We have considered the Alliance’s 

reasoning but conclude that: (a) Tree/ 

pole impacts comprise a significant 

safety problem (b) involving smaller 

occupants. 

Tree/Pole Impacts 

We disagree with several of the 

Alliance’s claims. The first concerns the 

magnitude of the side impact safety 

problem posed by tree or pole impacts. 

The commenter believes that 4.7 percent 

of nearside front outboard occupant 

crashes involved a tree of pole impact. 

That determination was based on the 

commenter’s analysis of all side crashes 

occurring in 1990–2002 that resulted in 

any injury, from minor (AIS 1) to fatal.39

Because there are many more AIS 1 and 

2 injuries in the accident database than 

AIS 3+ injuries, we believe that 

including AIS 1 and 2 injuries in the 

analysis masks the frequency of tree or 

pole impacts in crashes causing serious 

(AIS 3+) injuries and underestimates the 

harm addressed by this rulemaking. As 

discussed below and in the NPRM , an 

analysis that is focused on side 

crashes 40 resulting in a fatal injury 

shows that 21 percent of these crashes 

involved side impacts with rigid narrow 

objects. 

As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA 

analyzed fatalities in the 1991, 1995, 

and 1999 FARS files using non-rollover, 

near-side impact data. We have now 

also updated the analysis for 2004 

FARS.41 The fatalities occurred in the 

front and rear seats of light vehicles in 

side impacts with various objects. The 

percentage of vehicle-to-rigid narrow 

object impacts has remained stable at 

approximately 23 percent of the total 

number of fatal side impact crashes. The 

percentage of collisions with LTVs has 

increased, while the percentage of 

collisions with passenger cars has 

decreased over time. The results of the 

analysis are presented below in Table 

10: 

TABLE 10.—OCCUPANT FATALITY DISTRIBUTION

[Non-rollover near-side impacts] 

Collisions with 

passenger cars 

(percent) 

Collisions with 

LTVs 

(percent) 

Collisions with 

rigid narrow 

objects 

(percent) 

Collisions with 

other vehicles/ 

objects 

(percent) 

FARS 1991 MY 1987 and Later Light Vehicles ...................... 28.9 27.1 20.1 24.0 

FARS 1995 MY 1991 and Later Light Vehicles ...................... 24.8 33.0 21.2 21.0 

FARS 1999 MY 1995 and Later Light Vehicles ...................... 20.5 36.3 21.0 22.2 

FARS 2004 MY 2000 and Later Light Vehicles ...................... 15.4 38.5 23.2 22.9 

Given the number of tree or pole side 

crashes that occur, the analysis shows 

that tree or pole side impacts are overrepresented in terms of fatally injured 

occupants. 

Small Stature Occupants Are Seriously 

Injured in Tree/Pole Impacts 

The second aspect of the Alliance’s 

reasoning with which we disagree 

concerns the involvement of small 

stature occupants in tree or pole side 

crashes. The commenter believes that 

only 0.28 percent of nearside front 

outboard occupant crashes with trees or 

poles involved occupants with a height 

of 47 to 61 inches, and so the 5th 

percentile female dummy is not needed 

in the pole test. 

We analyzed accident data on drivers 

involved in side impacts to examine 

characteristics of drivers seriously 

injured or killed in tree or pole impacts. 

We found in analyzing 1990–2001 

National Automotive Sampling System 

Crashworthiness Data System (NASS 

CDS) 42 crash data that smaller stature 

drivers (height up to 5 feet 4 inches) 

comprise approximately 28 percent of 

seriously or fatally injured drivers in 

narrow object side impacts. The 1990–

2001 NASS CDS data also indicate that 

there are differences in the body region 

distribution of serious injuries between 

small and medium stature occupants 

that are seriously injured in these side 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51924 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

collisions. The data suggest that smaller 

stature occupants have a higher 

proportion of head, abdominal and 

pelvic injuries than medium stature 

occupants, and a lesser proportion of 

chest injuries. (‘‘NHTSA Side Impact 

Research: Motivation for Upgraded Test 

Procedures,’’ Samaha, et al. (2003).) 

The appropriateness of an 

anthropomorphic test device for a 

dynamic test depends in part on its 

ability to represent occupants involved 

or injured in the crash simulated by the 

dynamic test. There are only two side 

impact dummies existing today 

representing the sizes of occupants 

seriously injured in side impacts: the 

SID–IIs and the mid-size adult male 

dummies (e.g., the ES–2re). The height 

of a smaller stature (5th percentile) 

adult female is 59 inches (4 feet 11 

inches). The height of a mid-size adult 

male is about 69 inches (5 feet 9 inches). 

The mid-point between the two is 64 

inches (5 feet 4 inches). Drivers less 

than 64 inches in height are usually 

female and/or elderly, and are closer in 

physiology to a 5th percentile female 

than to a 50th percentile male. (Drivers 

taller than 64 inches could also be 

represented by the SID–IIs since driver 

height falls along a continuum. 

However, for purposes of our analysis of 

the impacts of this rulemaking, we had 

to make a cut-off and did so at 64 

inches.) Accordingly, we have 

determined that the SID–IIs, with its 

height of 59 inches (4 feet 11 inches), is 

representative of occupants of heights 

up to 64 inches (5 feet 4 inches). The 

assumption that a 5th percentile adult 

female dummy is representative of 

occupants of heights up to 64 inches (5 

feet 4 inches) is consistent with the 

approach taken by the agency in 

analyzing the impacts of advanced air 

bags under FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant 

crash protection.’’

The Alliance recommended that 

NHTSA assume that the SID–IIs only 

represented occupants with a height of 

47 (3 feet 11 inches) to 61 (5 feet 1 inch) 

inches. We believe this assumption is 

overly restrictive. Sixty-two-, 63- and 

64-inch tall adults, mostly women, are 

more similar in build to the SID–IIs than 

to the 50th percentile male dummy. 

As explained in the next section, 

including the 5th percentile female 

dummy in the oblique pole test will 

gain real world benefits beyond those 

attained using just a mid-size adult male 

dummy in the pole test. We estimate 

that the inclusion of the SID–IIs in the 

oblique pole test will save an additional 

78 lives beyond the fatalities saved by 

changes to vehicle designs to meet an 

oblique pole test using the 50th 

percentile male dummy alone. These 

lives lost annually of smaller stature 

occupants, many of whom are elderly, 

constitutes a safety problem that 

incorporation of the SID–IIs will 

address. 

Current Side Air Bags Will Be Made 

Even Better To Enhance Protection to 

Smaller Stature Drivers 

Current combination head/thorax air 

bags and side curtains generally perform 

well in the IIHS consumer information 

program side impact tests. They will do 

even better under our regulation. 

The Alliance believed that we should 

not be concerned that some side air bag 

systems we tested did not meet the 

IARVs with the SID–IIs. The commenter 

believed that ‘‘current side air bag 

systems are proving to be very effective 

in real-world side impacts * * * [and] 

that the agency’s concerns are 

unfounded and unwarranted regarding 

current side airbag designs failing to 

activate properly or providing sufficient 

coverage in real-world crash situations.’’

The primary impact of this regulation 

on motor vehicle safety will be to ensure 

that head protection is provided in 

passenger vehicles, and to improve on 

the protection of current bags. In our 

214 fleet testing program, current side 

air bags did not always meet the 

proposed criteria when tested with the 

SID–IIs dummy. In the agency’s tests of 

10 vehicles, seven exceeded the injury 

criteria for the 5th percentile female 

dummy in the oblique pole test (four 

exceeded HIC, four exceeded the lower 

spine, and seven exceeded the pelvic 

force criteria). In the Ford Five Hundred 

and Saturn Ion tests, we observed that 

the side air bags deployed after the 5th 

percentile female dummy had already 

moved toward the very front of the air 

bag at pole contact and had hit a portion 

of the air curtain/tether interface that 

was not inflated to cushion the impact, 

which resulted in HIC readings of 1,173 

(Ford Five Hundred) and 5,203 (Saturn 

Ion). In the Ford Expedition test, we 

observed that the SID–IIs rotated around 

the curtain and contacted a portion of 

the air curtain/tether interface that was 

not inflated to cushion the impact, 

which resulted in an HIC value of 5,661. 

If the ES–2re were the only test 

dummy used in the pole test, 

countermeasures installed for the ES–

2re might not protect the population 

(shorter and/or elderly drivers) 

represented by the 5th percentile female 

dummy. In the four air bag curtain tests 

discussed above, the HIC values for the 

ES–2re were moderate to low. The 5th 

percentile female dummy’s head is 

positioned lower than that of the ES–2re 

because of sitting height differences 

between the two dummies. The SID–IIs 

is also farther forward than the ES–2re 

adult male dummy, which leads to 

differences in the interplay between the 

dummy and the vehicle side structure, 

roof and side air bag system. The 

differences in size and sitting position 

between the two dummies affects more 

than HIC responses. In the agency’s 

oblique pole test of the Volkwagen Jetta, 

the pelvic force reading of the SID–IIs 

was 7,876 N, while the vehicle met all 

the IARVs for the 50th percentile male 

dummy. 

Air bag sensors could also be 

improved. As discussed in the NPRM 

(69 FR at 27998), the side air bags in two 

vehicles that were certified as meeting 

the requirements of a perpendicular 

crash test (the FMVSS No. 201 90- 

degree pole test) did not deploy when 

tested with the 5th percentile female 

dummy in the oblique pole test. We do 

not consider this to be a matter of a test 

artifact or other anomaly of the 

laboratory test conditions. We conclude 

that the oblique localized loading in the 

pole test (from the two distinct narrow 

impact locations corresponding to the 

seating positions of both sizes of test 

dummies) will induce more robust crash 

sensors that will lead to further 

protection in the field. 

ii. Need for the 5th Percentile Dummy 

in the MDB Test 

The Alliance believed that crash data 

demonstrate that occupants with heights 

less than 65 inches are involved in 

vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts with a 

‘‘significant frequency,’’ i.e., that adult 

male and adult females are similarly 

represented in vehicle-to-vehicle 

crashes in the delta-V range of 12–25 

mph, in which a front, outboard struckside occupant receives a serious-to-fatal 

injury. The commenter also determined 

that vehicle-to-vehicle side impacts are 

significantly more frequent compared to 

tree/pole side impacts. However, the 

commenter believed that ‘‘[T]he 

industry’s voluntary agreement already 

includes requirements for an MDB test 

using a 5th percentile female dummy; 

we believe NHTSA has not 

demonstrated the need to overlay this 

agreement with a 5th percentile female 

MDB regulatory test requirement.’’

Ferrari stated that we did not clearly 

identify the expected benefits from the 

use of the dummy in the MDB test. 

Ferrari further stated that, even if the 

population represented by the 5th 

percentile female dummy were at a 

greater risk of head and abdominal 

injuries, the SID–IIs dummy would not 

provide any increased benefit to this 

population because the dummy ‘‘does 

not have any feature able to measure 

abdominal injuries, and the risk of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51925 

43The Forenza was not tested with the ES–2re 

dummy. 44 Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T., 

Yoganandan, N., Pintar, F., ‘‘Development of Side 

Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and their 

Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib 

Extensions (ES–2re),’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 

47 October 2003, The Stapp Association. A paper 

demonstrating that deflections are the best 

predictors of injury in frontal impacts is by Kent et 

al. (Kent, R., Crandall, J., Bolton, J., Prasad, P., 

Nusholtz, G., Mertz, H., ‘‘The Influence of 

Superficial Soft Tissues and Restraint Condition on 

Thoracic Skeletal Injury Prediction,’’ Stapp Car 

Crash Journal, Vol. 45, November 2003, The Stapp 

Association.) 45We will also monitor the SID–IIs rib deflections 

in the oblique pole test. 46A ratio of sitting height to standing height, 

developed by the University of Michigan 

Continued 

injuries to the head is much better 

assessed by the pole impact test (not the 

MDB test). The introduction of the SID–

2s [sic], lacking even a chest deflection 

criterion, would not supplement in any 

way the protection provided by the 

introduction of the ES–2 or ES–2re.’’

Agency response: Based on our 

evaluation of available data, we have 

decided to require only one MDB test 

(per side of the vehicle). The MDB test 

specifies use of an ES–2re (50th 

percentile adult male) dummy in the 

front seating position and a SID–IIs (5th 

percentile adult female) dummy in the 

rear. 

The NPRM proposed to use the ES–

2re dummy in both the front and rear 

outboard seating positions on both sides 

of the vehicle, and also proposed use of 

the SID–IIs dummy in the front and rear 

outboard seating positions on both sides 

of the vehicle. We issued the proposal 

based in part on crash data indicating 

that 35 percent of all serious and fatal 

injuries to nearside occupants occurred 

to occupants 5 feet 4 inches (or 163 

centimeters) or less, which are best 

represented by the 5th percentile female 

dummy (69 FR at 27991). We also 

considered the results of two MDB tests 

with the SID–IIsFRG dummy that had 

indicated a need for the dummy. In a 

test of a 2001 Ford Focus, the pelvic 

force was exceeded for the driver 

dummy (5,621 N). In a test of a 2002 

Chevrolet Impala, the left rear dummy’s 

lower spine acceleration and pelvic 

force criteria were exceeded (89 g and 

5,711 N, respectively). Based on those 

results, we expected that improvements 

to the arm rest area and other structural 

components would be required to 

improve protection for the 5th 

percentile occupants (69 FR at 28011). 

Since the NPRM, we have conducted 

eight MDB tests with the SID–IIs 

dummy in predominantly model year 

2005 vehicles. Our crash test results 

have shown that vehicles newer than 

the 2001 Focus and the 2002 Impala are 

generally able to meet the proposed 

injury criteria when tested with this 

dummy. (The 2001 Focus has since 

undergone a mid-cycle design change 

with head/torso combo bags becoming 

optional for model year 2005 vehicles. 

The 2002 Impala has since been 

redesigned with model year 2006 

vehicles having curtain and thorax bags 

as standard equipment.) 

MDB Test of the Front Seat 

For the driver dummy, 7 of 8 vehicles 

met the criteria. The one exception for 

the front seat was the 2005 Saturn Ion, 

which resulted in the SID–IIs driver 

dummy exceeding the pelvic force 

criterion (8,993 N). 

The Saturn Ion in the test was 

equipped with an air curtain, but lacked 

a thorax-mounted side air bag. The lack 

of thoracic air bag protection may have 

led to the high pelvic force measured by 

the dummy. In our pole testing, the 

Saturn Ion exceeded the limits on HIC 

(5,203), lower spine acceleration (110 g) 

and pelvic force (5,755 N). It also scored 

‘‘poor’’ in the IIHS side impact 

crashworthiness evaluation. Based on 

this complete array of testing with this 

vehicle, we believe that needed 

improvements to comply with the 

oblique pole tests of this final rule will 

likely address the one SID–IIs driver 

dummy failure that the agency observed 

in its MDB test. 

Thus, based on the available data that 

show: 

(a) All vehicles except the Ion meeting 

the MDB test when tested with the SID–

IIs in the front seat; and 

(b) Countermeasures to address the 

Ion’s failing the pelvic criterion in the 

front seat of the pole test when tested 

with the SID–IIs could address the 

failure of the vehicle to meet the pelvic 

criterion in the MDB front seat test—

The agency has decided not to adopt 

an MDB test with the SID–IIs in the 

front seating positions. 

The benefits from an MDB test with 

the SID–IIs in the front seat will likely 

be absorbed by the SID–IIs front seat 

oblique pole test requirements, as 

suggested by some of the commenters. 

That is, a countermeasure such as a 

thorax air bag in the front seat of the Ion 

installed to meet the pole test 

requirements could also enable the Ion 

to meet the pelvic criterion of the MDB 

rest. Thus, the MDB test of the front seat 

with the SID–IIs dummy is unlikely to 

lead to improved occupant protection, 

and is not warranted for adoption into 

FMVSS No. 214. 

(On the other hand, adoption of the 

ES–2re dummy in the MDB tests to test 

the front seat of vehicles is warranted. 

The reasons for adopting the ES–2re in 

the front seat of this test are explained 

in section VI.c of this preamble.) 

MDB Test of the Rear Seat 

The test of the rear seat with the SID–

IIs resulted in high pelvic forces in the 

Honda Accord and in the Suzuki 

Forenza. We were concerned about 

these results because rear seat occupants 

are predominantly made up of smaller 

stature occupants, e.g., children, who 

more closely resemble the 

anthropometry of the SID–IIs than a 

50th percentile adult male. All vehicles 

met all the criteria proposed in the 

NPRM when tested with the ES–2re 

50th percentile male dummy. 

In addition, we observed that in the 

tests of the VW Jetta, Saturn Ion, Ford 

Five Hundred, and Honda Accord, and 

the Suzuki Forenza,43 the SID–IIs 

dummy in the rear seat of the MDB test 

had elevated thoracic and/or abdominal 

rib deflections that were not observed 

with the rear seat ES–2re dummy. We 

felt that the rib deflections of the SID–

IIs were noteworthy, since many experts 

consider deflection to be the best 

predictor of thoracic injury.44 We 

believed that the SID–IIs’s elevated rib 

deflections in the rear seat indicated 

that side impact crashworthiness 

designs in the rear were possibly in 

need of improvement to better protect 

rear seat occupants, particularly 

children and other smaller stature 

occupants. 

Incorporation of the SID–IIs into the 

rear seat MDB test enables us to monitor 

readily the rib deflections measured in 

the test 45 to assess how the rear seat 

environment is protecting children and 

small occupants. While the agency did 

not propose thoracic and abdominal rib 

deflection requirements for the 5th 

percentile female dummy and thus is 

not adopting rib deflection limits in this 

final rule, we are considering a future 

rulemaking to adopt limits on the 

thoracic and abdominal rib deflections 

measured by the SID–IIs in the FMVSS 

No. 214 MDB and pole tests. The 

rulemaking could be a part of a 

rulemaking to incorporate WorldSID 

into FMVSS No. 214, if such a 

rulemaking were to ensue, or it could be 

developed on its own. 

Incorporation of the SID–IIs into 

FMVSS No. 214’s MDB test of the rear 

seat enhances protection of rear seat 

occupants also because the 5th 

percentile adult female dummy better 

represents the anthropometry of rear 

seat occupants than the SID or the ES–

2re (50th percentile male dummies). 

The average seated height of rearoutboard occupants is approximately 

81.6 centimeters (cm).46 The sitting 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51926 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), is 

approximately 0.54. Applying this ratio to the real 

world rear seat occupant data, the mean sitting 

height of occupants in rear outboard seats 

(excluding those in infant and toddler child 

restraint systems) is 81.6 cm. 47The industry’s voluntary commitment is a 

commitment to meet IIHS’s recommended practice 

of HIC15 performance of 779 or less for a SID–IIs 

crash dummy in the driver’s seating position and 

does not include at this time performance criteria 

for other body regions, specifically, the thoracic and 

abdominal regions. The voluntary commitment also 

does not address the right front or rear seat 

passenger positions at this time. 

48The agency conducted the tests to replicate 

biomechanical sled test impact configurations 

previously reported by Maltese et al. (‘‘Response 

Corridors of Human Surrogates in Lateral Impacts,’’

Technical Paper 2002–22–0017. Proceedings, 46th 

Stapp Car Crash Conference, 2002). 

49The FRG design also encompassed other 

changes to improve the durability of the dummy. 

The shoulder rib guide of the dummy was reshaped 

and deepened beyond the front edge of the shoulder 

rib to keep the shoulder rib from moving vertically 

during its compression. The damping material of 

the shoulder rib assembly was made thinner and 

spanned the entire width of the steel band. 

50The Alliance stated in its comment, ‘‘The OSRP 

SID–IIs Upgrade Task Group is responsible for 

coordinating, evaluating and approving any design 

modifications to the SID–IIs dummy, originally 

designed in 1994–95.’’

height of the SID–IIs is approximately 

78.8 cm, while that of the ES–2re is 88.4 

cm. The SID–IIs is closer in height to the 

average outboard rear seat occupant 

than the SID or the ES–2re. The SID–

IIs’s ability to assess the risk of head 

injury through the measurement of HIC 

will better ensure that head protection 

is provided to children and smaller 

stature adults in rear seating positions 

than through use of the 50th percentile 

adult male test dummies. 

Safety will also be enhanced by this 

final rule using the SID–IIs in the rear 

seat since this smaller sized dummy 

will fit in more vehicles, and therefore 

exclude few vehicles that cannot 

accommodate the 50th percentile male 

dummy. (Currently, S3(b) of FMVSS No. 

214 excludes the rear seat in passenger 

cars that have rear seating areas that are 

so small that the 50th percentile adult 

male test dummy cannot be 

accommodated according to the 

positioning procedure specified in the 

standard.) We believe use of the SID–IIs 

in the rear will provide the agency with 

the ability to test more vehicles that 

have rear seats too small to 

accommodate the mid-size male 

dummy. On the other hand, we have 

decided not to adopt the ES–2re dummy 

in the rear seat of the MDB tests. Our 

reasons are explained in section VI.c of 

this preamble. 

iii. Beyond the Voluntary Commitment 

Test data demonstrate the benefit of 

having the SID–IIs in the pole test, 

notwithstanding the industry’s 

voluntary agreement.47 In the agency’s 

side impact test program, vehicles that 

were rated ‘‘Good’’ in the IIHS side 

crashworthiness evaluation when tested 

with the SID–IIs exceeded one or more 

of the injury criteria of this rule when 

tested with the SID–IIs in our pole test 

program. In the pole test of the 

Volkwagen Jetta, which IIHS scored 

‘‘Good,’’ the pelvic force (7,876 N) 

exceeded the IARV (limit 5,525 N). In 

the pole test of the Honda Accord, the 

SID–IIs’s pelvic force criterion was over 

10,000 N. The industry’s voluntary 

commitment does not commit to 

reducing these pelvic forces. However, 

we can ensure improvement as a result 

of manufacturers’ meeting the pole 

requirements of this final rule. 

B. However, Not All of the Proposed 

FRG Changes Are Needed 

The SID–IIs test dummy has been 

used by Transport Canada in crash tests 

since the late 1990s and is used by IIHS 

in its consumer information program for 

ranking vehicle performance. In its 

initial evaluation of the dummy, 

NHTSA had found some durability 

problems with the dummy’s shoulder 

and ribcage and some chest transducer 

mechanical failures. To improve the 

durability of the dummy, NHTSA 

modified the dummy to incorporate, 

among other things, floating rib guides 

to better stabilize the dummy’s ribs. (See 

69 FR at 70948.) 

The durability problem arose in 6.7 

meters per second (m/s) sled tests of the 

SID–IIs Build C dummy using a rigid 

wall with a 101 mm abdominal offset.48

Damage in some of the tests included 

deformed abdominal ribs, bent 

abdominal potentiometer shafts, and/or 

gouged damping material, caused by 

vertical motion of the ribs and/or 

excessive rib compression. The agency 

concluded that, under those test 

circumstances, portions of the 

abdominal and thorax ribs during their 

extreme compression were extending 

beyond the boundaries of existing rib 

guides, and that under some test 

conditions, were moving out of their 

initial plane of translation. Such out of 

plane translation caused the linear 

deflection transducer pivots to exceed 

their angular motion limits, resulting in 

transducer shaft failures and rib 

damping material gouging due to 

interaction between the extended ribs 

and the rib guides. 

NHTSA developed the floating rib 

guide system to prevent the compressed 

ribs from leaving the outside perimeter 

of the rib guides and thereby prevent 

damage to surrounding areas. Rib guides 

were used to ‘‘float’’ with the ribs as 

they expanded in the anterior-posterior 

direction during rib compression. This 

was intended not only to eliminate the 

problem of ribs extending outside the 

boundaries of the rib guides, but also 

retain the ribs in their initial plane and 

thereby prevent damage to the 

transducer shaft. To further prevent 

damage (bending) of potentiometer 

shafts and damage to potentiometer 

housings, the rib stops were reshaped 

and changed from a flexible urethane 

material to vinyl-coated aluminum. The 

maximum lateral rib deflection of the 

dummy was also reduced from 69 mm 

to 60 mm to further protect the 

instrumentation.49

While NHTSA tentatively determined 

there was a need for the FRG 

modifications, the agency noted in the 

December 8, 2004 Part 572 NPRM that 

there were other views as to the need for 

the FRG changes to the dummy (69 FR 

at 70954). The NPRM noted that 

Transport Canada, IIHS and the industry 

had used the unmodified SID–IIs 

dummy for several years to their 

satisfaction. 

Comments on the proposed FRG 

changes: All commenters responding to 

this issue were opposed to or expressed 

concern about adopting the FRG 

modifications to the SID–IIs dummy. 

Commenters believed that the 

unmodified Build Level C and/or Build 

Level D dummies were sufficiently 

durable for crash tests. In its October 14, 

2004 comments on the NPRM, the 

Alliance stated that the OSRP SID–IIs 

Upgrade Task Group 50 had agreed to 

enhancements of the SID–IIs Build C 

dummy or modifications incorporated 

into the Build D dummy, but, the 

Alliance emphasized, OSRP had 

steadfastly maintained that there was no 

durability problem requiring the floating 

rib guide change to the dummy’s thorax. 

The Alliance believed that NHTSA’s 

Vehicle Research and Test Center 

(VRTC)—

proposed the addition of floating rib guides 

to the SID–IIs dummy based on a small series 

of sled tests, including a single abdominal 

offset sled test in which the ribs were 

damaged and exited the original rib guides. 

The test was performed with an improperly 

positioned and improperly scaled abdominal 

plate that simulated a rigid armrest. This 

setup produced a very severe impact 

condition for the SID–IIs (AF05) dummy. 

Instead of being scaled for the AF05, the test 

was performed with an abdominal plate that 

was offset 100 mm, which are the test 

conditions for the ES–2 (AM50) dummy. 

Further, the 100 mm offset is at the extreme 

end of the range of armrest width in typical 

vehicles. In addition, the abdominal plate is 

rigid and therefore provided a more severe 

impact surface than do typically padded and 

deformable vehicle armrests. This test setup 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51927 

51A final rule adopting the Build Level D into 49 

CFR part 572 was published December 14, 2006, 71 

FR 75342, Docket 25442. The part 572 final rule 

discusses the biofidelity, repeatability, 

reproducibility, durability, and other aspects of the 

dummy. The document discusses the agency’s 

decision to adopt some but not the entirety of the 

floating rib guide design. 

produced an impact condition for the AF05 

dummy more severe than that of full-scale 

vehicle tests, since the dummy’s ribs were 

damaged in the sled test but no rib damage 

occurred in the vehicle tests using the SID–

IIs Version C. 

The Alliance further stated that the 

agency’s concern about the accuracy of 

the acceleration and deflection 

measurements of the Build Level C 

dummy due to the ribs not staying in 

place ‘‘does not follow logically because 

it is quite normal to have the ribs 

deform during impact by expanding in 

the fore-aft dimension of the chest. The 

fact that they change shape and do not 

stay in place has nothing to do with the 

accuracy of the deflection 

measurements.’’

IIHS also objected to the agency’s use 

of the 6.7 m/s test. IIHS found the FRG 

version of the SID–IIs ‘‘an unacceptable 

and unnecessary compromise of the 

original dummy’s biofidelity to address 

an unproven durability problem’’

(March 4, 2005 comment to Docket 

18865). IIHS stated: 

Not only have NHTSA’s own vehicle crash 

tests failed to show any durability problems 

with the original dummy design, but Institute 

and industry experience confirms the 

dummy is durable enough for crash testing. 

As of October 2004 the Institute had 

conducted 48 side impact tests with the SID–

IIs dummies positioned in the driver and rear 

outboard seating positions, for a total of 96 

SID–IIs test exposures. Of these only 6 

caused any damage to the dummy; in 4 tests 

the dummy’s shoulder was damaged, and in 

2 tests one of the abdominal ribs did not pass 

post-test verification. Similar trends are 

found in the Occupant Safety Research 

Partnership (OSRP) dataset, which includes 

tests conducted by DaimlerChrysler, General 

Motors, the Institute, and Transport Canada. 

Of the 241 SID–IIs test exposures (or 1,446 

exposures to the dummies’ individual ribs), 

only 21 tests (8.7 percent) caused any 

dummy damage; of these only 3 tests (0.3 

percent of total rib exposures) exhibited any 

evidence of ribs catching on the vertical 

guides. 

IIHS recommended that NHTSA 

adopt the SID–IIs Build Level C or the 

Build Level D dummy into FMVSS No. 

214. IIHS stated (Docket 18865): 

Build Level D would incorporate many of 

the design upgrades currently in the FRG 

version that would improve the dummy 

while maintaining its high biofidelity rating. 

The changes IIHS supports for build level D 

include redesign of the shoulder rib and rib 

guide, neck mounting bracket, rib stops, and 

spine box. Using either C- or D-level SID–IIs 

would permit the agency to draw on the 

dummy’s accumulated crash test experience 

to incorporate rib deflection data among the 

FMVSS 214 requirements. 

Some commenters expressed a view 

that the SID–IIsFRG dummy was itself 

not an adequate a test device for 

incorporation into 49 CFR part 572. The 

Alliance stated that in full vehicle crash 

tests, there are significant differences in 

the shape and magnitude of the chest 

deflection responses of the SID–IIsFRG 

and the Build C dummy, with the SID–

IIsFRG having ‘‘greatly reduced’’

deflections. The Alliance stated that 

researchers at Transport Canada and 

elsewhere found ‘‘no flat-topping in the 

original SID–IIs, but severe flat topping 

in the SID–IIsFRG.’’ Nissan stated that it 

has observed scratching of the SID–

IIsFRG’s rib guides created by rib 

contact and was concerned that this 

phenomenon could reduce test 

repeatability using the dummy over 

time, or may negatively affect the 

accuracy of the rib data. 

Some commenters believed that it was 

more advantageous to adopt the SID–IIs 

Build Level C or Build Level D dummy 

than the SID–IIsFRG. The Alliance 

stated that the ISO 9790 biofidelity 

rating of the SID–IIsFRG is only ‘‘fair’’

(5.9), while that of the SID–IIs Build C 

was ‘‘good’’ (7.0). IIHS expressed 

serious concern that the FRG 

modification ‘‘has considerably 

degraded’’ the SID–IIs dummy’s 

biofidelity. IIHS supported the Build 

Level C or D dummies in the rulemaking 

because it would permit the agency to 

incorporate rib deflection data in test 

requirements. IIHS stated: 

Without rib deflection limits for tests with 

the small dummy, the proposed side impact 

standard will not establish the same 

minimum levels of protection for vehicle 

occupants of various sizes. It is disappointing 

that part of NHTSA’s reason for not including 

SID–IIsFRG rib deflection limits was the need 

to study the issue further. By favoring the 

FRG modified dummy the agency is ignoring 

the accumulated test experience with the 

original dummy. 

Advocates expressed ‘‘misgivings over 

the lack of chest deflection 

measurement capability for the 5th 

percentile SID–IIsFRG female dummy.’’

Honda expressed concern that the SID–

IIsFRG is not commonly used by 

automakers today. Honda stated that, 

‘‘The use of SID–IIs [Build Level C or D] 

will expand because it is specified in 

the [industry’s] voluntarily commitment 

on FMVSS No. 214.’’ TRW said that 

using ‘‘known and accepted’’ test 

dummies could help expedite motor 

vehicle manufacturers’ meeting their 

‘‘voluntary commitment’’ to install 

inflatable side head protection systems. 

Agency response: After reviewing the 

comments and other information, we 

have decided to use the SID–IIs Build 

Level D test dummy, rather than the 

FRG dummy, in FMVSS No. 214.51

The SID–IIsFRG floating rib guide 

concept was developed to improve the 

durability of the SID–IIs dummy under 

extremely severe impact conditions. We 

have concluded that data now available 

to the agency do not support a need for 

all of the floating rib guide design. The 

test conditions precipitating the 

development of the FRG were 

exceptionally severe and appear to be 

unlike vehicle crashes to which the 

crash dummy is exposed. 

The OSRP task group and IIHS noted 

that the type of damage reported by 

NHTSA in VRTC sled tests was not 

experienced in their full scale vehicle 

crash tests. Our own testing bears this 

out. Since the time of the NPRM, 

NHTSA has used the SID–IIs (Build D) 

in over 24 oblique pole and MDB crash 

tests without seeing structural or 

functional problems with the dummy. 

In addition, the agency evaluated four 

SID–IIs Build D dummies in extensive 

component, sled, and pole and MDB 

vehicle crash tests without sustaining 

functionality and durability problems. 

The Build D dummy has many of the 

enhancements of the SID–IIsFRG and 

some enhancements similar to FRG 

features, including new rib stops, larger 

motion ranges of potentiometers pivots, 

1⁄2 inch diameter potentiometers, and 

enhancements to the shoulder structure. 

The shoulder enhancements address 

bending deformation of the shoulder rib, 

delamination and/or gouging damage to 

the deflection transducer. All of these 

enhancements have improved the 

structural integrity of the dummy and 

have eliminated the need for all of the 

floating rib guide design changes. 

We further believe that there are 

advantages to adopting the SID–IIs 

Build D dummy rather than the SID– 

IIsFRG beyond what is needed for the 

durability of the dummy. As noted by 

the commenters, while the FRG was 

very successful in containing the ribs 

within the rib guides and in preventing 

potentiometer-transducer failures, the 

floating rib guides added mass and 

additional stiffness to the ribs. As a 

result, the FRG became less human-like, 

rib deflections seriously reduced, and 

the shape of the deflection-time 

histories changed compared to testing 

under similar loading conditions 

without the FRG. Id. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

52 Delta-V distributions were derived from 1997–

2003 CDS. Fatalities were adjusted to the 2001 

FARS level, and non-fatal injuries to the 2001 GES 

level. 

IIHS uses the SID–IIs in its side 

impact consumer information program. 

IIHS noted in its comments to the 

NPRM that Build D would incorporate 

many of the design upgrades currently 

in the FRG version that would improve 

the dummy while maintaining the 

dummy’s high biofidelity rating. 

Transport Canada plans to continue 

using the SID–IIs in its research 

program. Using Build D in FMVSS No. 

214 means that the same dummy will be 

used in governmental and nongovernmental consumer information 

and research programs. This consistency 

will enhance the testing of vehicles by 

making the test results from NHTSA, 

Transport Canada, IIHS and industry in 

many ways more comparable. Using the 

same test dummy will also more 

effectively focus research and design 

efforts on more consistent and effective 

countermeasures that will most 

successfully protect smaller stature 

occupants. Accordingly, this final rule 

adopts use of the SID–IIs test dummy 

into the compliance tests of FMVSS No. 

214. 

b. Aspects of the Pole Test Procedure 

In the NPRM, the agency proposed a 

dynamic vehicle-to-pole test that is 

similar to the one used to test some 

vehicles under FMVSS No. 201, except 

that the test procedure would involve an 

angle of impact of 75 degrees (instead of 

90 degrees) and a test speed of up to and 

including 32 km/h (20 mph) (instead of 

24–29 km/h (15–18 mph)). We further 

proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 

such that, if the oblique 32 km/h (20 

mph) pole test were added to FMVSS 

No. 214, vehicles certified to the latter 

test would be excluded from having to 

be certified to FMVSS No. 201’s 90 

degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test. 

Virtually all of the commenters 

supported the adoption of a pole test to 

enhance side impact occupant 

protection further. These commenters 

included the Alliance, which supported 

a 32 km/h (20 mph) test using a 75- 

degree oblique impact angle. However, 

Ferrari, Lotus, and Maserati supported a 

pole test that was harmonized with the 

pole test of EuroNCAP (perpendicular 

29 km/h (18 mph) impact). 

1. Speed 

The NPRM proposed (in section 

S9.1.1 of the proposed regulatory text) 

that each vehicle must meet the oblique 

pole test requirements when tested ‘‘at 

any speed up to and including 32 km/ 

h (20 mph).’’ The agency also requested 

comments on the alternative of a 29 km/ 

h (18 mph) test speed, which is used in 

the optional perpendicular pole test of 

FMVSS No. 201. 

Nearly all commenters supported the 

32 km/h (20 mph) test speed. The 

Alliance supported a 32 km/h (20 mph) 

test speed, but recommended bounding 

it with a lower bound as is done with 

the FMVSS No. 201 optional pole test. 

FMVSS No. 201 sets a lower limit of 24 

km/h (15 mph) in the pole test. In 

setting the FMVSS No. 201 final rule, 

NHTSA concluded that a 24 km/h (15 

mph) lower limit was appropriate 

because 24 km/h (15 mph) represented 

the point at which occupants experience 

moderate to serious (AIS 2 and AIS 3) 

injuries. The agency believed that 

testing at impact speeds below which a 

dynamic head protection system would 

deploy or offer any meaningful safety 

benefits would serve no purpose. (64 FR 

69665, December 14, 1999.) The 

Alliance and DaimlerChrysler 

commented that, since the increase in 

lateral velocity from a 29 km/h (18 mph) 

perpendicular pole test to a 32 km/h (20 

mph) 75-degree oblique test is only 1.3 

mph, the minimum oblique test speed 

should be 1 mph over the current 

minimum perpendicular test speed of 

24 km/h (15 mph) in FMVSS No. 201. 

Public Citizen expressed its support 

for a 32 km/h (20 mph) test speed, 

stating that such a speed ‘‘appropriately 

protects from the depth of intrusion that 

occurs when passenger cars are hit in 

the side by a pickup truck or SUV.’’ A 

private individual, Mr. William Watson, 

believed that the designs needed to 

comply with the higher test speed 

would not place an undue burden upon 

manufacturers, but simply provide a 

higher margin of safety for occupants. 

Autoliv supported the higher test speed 

of 32 km/h (20 mph) on the basis that 

the commenter believed it would benefit 

more occupants in real world crashes. It 

also stated that the higher speed would 

present some challenges, particularly for 

the new criteria for thorax protection. 

However, Autoliv did not anticipate that 

these challenges would affect its ability 

to meet product demand during the 

proposed phase-in requirements. TRW 

believed that the side protection 

systems designed to meet the 

requirements of the NPRM could 

perform acceptably for out-of-position 

(OOP) occupants. 

Opposed to the 32 km/h (20 mph) test 

speed were Ferrari and Maserati. Ferrari 

believed that increasing the pole test 

speed from 18 to 20 mph would be 

excessively burdensome, forcing 

manufacturers to redesign side 

structures and head protection side 

bags. Further, Ferrari believed that it 

would force an increase in the power of 

the head protection side bag, which 

might lead to an increased injury risk 

for children and occupants that are 

OOP. The commenter believed that a 

pole test that is consistent with the 

EuroNCAP side pole impact test, i.e., an 

18 mph perpendicular pole test, is the 

only way the test can be reasonable and 

practicable for small volume 

manufacturers. 

Agency response: After carefully 

reviewing the comments, the agency has 

decided to adopt the pole test speed 

proposed in the NPRM. The oblique 

pole test procedure is conducted at any 

speed up to and including 32 km/h (20 

mph). A higher test speed than 29 km/ 

h (18 mph) will provide for a higher 

degree of safety and will benefit more 

occupants in the real world. As 

previously noted in the NPRM for this 

final rule, the agency found that crashes 

with a delta-V of 32 km/h (20 mph) or 

higher result in approximately half of 

the seriously injured occupants in 

narrow object side impact crashes (69 

FR at 27997). A test conducted at 32 

km/h (20 mph) maximum speed better 

represents the speed of real world 

crashes that result in serious injury than 

an 18-mph test. Based on our testing, we 

believe that it is feasible to meet the test 

requirements at 32 km/h (20 mph) and 

there would be little cost differential. 

The practicability of meeting the 

requirements at the 32 km/h (20 mph) 

test speed was evidenced by the results 

of the agency’s testing of the model year 

2005 Subaru Forester, Volkswagen 

Beetle and Saab 9–3. We further note 

that the Beetle and the Saab 9–3 were 

also reported to be in compliance with 

the voluntary TWG requirements for 

out-of-position occupant assessment. 

Further, Autoliv and TRW commented 

that countermeasures could be designed 

to meet the higher speed oblique pole 

test, and also perform acceptably for 

out-of-position occupants. 

We do not agree with the Alliance’s 

suggestion of narrowing the oblique 

pole test speed range to 26 km/h to 32 

km/h (16 to 20 mph). Limiting the test 

speed range would not ensure 

protection for side impact crashes that 

occur at delta-Vs under 26 km/h (16 

mph). Our crash databases have shown 

that crashes with a delta-V of 26 km/h 

(16 mph) or less result in approximately 

a third of the fatalities and almost half 

of the MAIS 3–5 non-fatally injured 

occupants in near-side crashes. This 

analysis was based on front-outboard 

adult occupants with serious or fatal 

injuries in 1997–2003 NASS nonrollover, near-side crashes.52 Based on 

the crash data, we believe that there is 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51929 

53With a curtain and 2-sensor system. 

a demonstrated safety need to require 

manufacturers to ensure that vehicles 

provide improved protection in crashes 

below 26 km/h (16 mph). 

We note that our motivation for this 

rulemaking was to establish a 

comprehensive side impact upgrade that 

required a systems approach to improve 

protection against head, thoracic, 

abdominal and pelvic injuries in a 

vehicle-to-pole test. It was not to 

duplicate FMVSS No. 201, which is 

primarily intended to address head 

impacts to the vehicle interior 

compartment. Only as a consideration of 

regulatory burden did we explore the 

degree to which the oblique pole test 

duplicated the requirements of FMVSS 

No. 201. While compliance with the 

FMVSS No. 214 oblique pole test 

supersedes the need to conduct a 

FMVSS No. 201 pole test, the agency 

did not intend to mimic the boundary 

conditions of that test. 

Nor do we want to. When the 24 to 

29 km/h (15 to 18 mph) pole test speed 

range was adopted in FMVSS No. 201 

in 1999, side impact air bag systems 

were only starting to emerge. The goal 

of the agency in adopting a lower limit 

in FMVSS No. 201 was to reduce test 

burdens and to facilitate the 

introduction of these systems. The goal 

of today’s rulemaking is to upgrade 

overall side impact protection, 

particularly in pole-type crashes. Since 

1999, side impact air bags have become 

proven countermeasures that are 

effective in protecting against head, 

chest, abdominal and pelvic injuries, 

and in helping retain an occupant 

within the safe environment of the 

vehicle compartment. If the 

countermeasure is effective in reducing 

the risk of serious injury in crashes 

below 26 km/h (16 mph), we know of 

no compelling reason not to set a 

performance requirement that would 

necessitate its employment. If deploying 

the air bag is not needed to meet the 

injury criteria at a speed below a certain 

threshold, the manufacturer can make a 

manufacturing decision based on that 

fact when designing the vehicle. It may 

pose a test burden for the manufacturer 

to determine what that threshold should 

be, but it is a burden that is offset by the 

enhancement to side impact protection 

achievable in pole-type crashes. 

For different vehicle designs, the 

threshold of when an air bag is needed 

to meet the injury criteria could differ. 

Establishing a lower test speed range in 

the oblique pole test could have the 

causal effect of establishing ‘‘design 

points’’ for restraint systems that may or 

may not be optimal to vehicle design. 

The threshold for air bag deployment 

(gray zone) can be dependent on many 

vehicle attributes, such as side structure 

strength, energy absorption, air bag 

characteristics, etc. One vehicle design 

may be able to meet the injury criteria 

without an air bag at 24 km/h (15 mph), 

while another might need an air bag to 

meet an oblique pole test at that same 

speed. To prescribe a 26 km/h (16 mph) 

lower bound for the test speed might 

force a test condition that may not be 

ideal for occupant safety, given 

individual gray zones and compliance 

margins. Therefore, to ensure occupant 

protection at impact speeds below 26 

km/h (16 mph), the final rule adopts the 

proposed oblique pole test conditions 

up to and including 32 km/h (20 mph), 

rather than a reduced range of 26 km/ 

h (16 mph) to 32 km/h (20 mph). 

The agency is also not persuaded by 

Ferrari’s comments that the oblique pole 

test would be excessively burdensome. 

As discussed in the lead time section of 

this notice, the agency believes that 

vehicle manufacturers will have ample 

time to redesign their vehicles to meet 

the new requirements. By complying 

with the FMVSS No. 214 oblique test, 

excessive burden from complying with 

the FMVSS No. 201 pole test is 

removed. 

2. Angle 

The proposed 75-degree impact angle 

was generally supported except by 

Ferrari, Lotus and Maserati, which 

supported a 90-degree test similar to 

that of EuroNCAP. Ferrari added that an 

oblique pole test would force the 

manufacturers to focus their efforts on 

specific test conditions, detrimental to 

other ones (e.g., out-of-position 

occupants). 

DaimlerChrysler believed that the 

perpendicular pole impact versus the 

75-degree impact is not radically 

different and would provide similar 

levels of occupant protection. However, 

it stated that the perpendicular 

approach had qualitative benefits, such 

as simplicity in test setup, 

reproducibility, test dummy capability, 

and harmonization. The commenter 

stated that, although the agency has 

encountered specific cases in which a 

vehicle designed to comply with the 

perpendicular impact failed to detect 

the 75-degree oblique pole impact, 

DaimlerChrysler was not aware of this 

as a real world issue. 

In support of the proposed impact 

angle, William Watson believed that the 

75-degree pole test is a clear 

improvement over the perpendicular 

test in terms of the real world 

applicability and occupant protection. 

However, Mr. Watson stated that 

choosing one specific test angle might 

lead to restraint and sensor designs that 

perform poorly for other angles. He 

believed that more than one impact 

angle should be tested, given the 

agency’s data that suggests a difference 

of 15 degrees can produce significantly 

different sensing responses. Therefore, 

the commenter recommended that we 

retain the current perpendicular pole 

test and add the 75-degree oblique test 

as a supplemental requirement. 

Agency response: The agency has 

decided to adopt the 75-degree impact 

angle proposed in the NPRM. The 

agency concludes that the oblique pole 

test will enhance safety because it is 

more representative of real-world side 

impact pole crashes than a 90-degree 

test. Frontal oblique crashes account for 

the highest percentage of seriously 

injured (MAIS 3+) near-side occupants 

in narrow object crashes, and our 

research indicates that the 75-degree 

impact is repeatable to simulate in a 

laboratory test. 

A 75-degree approach angle is 

preferable to a 90-degree angle because 

the oblique impact exposes the 

dummy’s head and thorax to both 

longitudinal and lateral crash forces that 

are typically experienced in real world 

side impacts. Weighted 1999–2001 

NASS CDS side impact data show that 

in narrow object crashes, serious head 

and chest are dominant for both small 

and large stature occupants (69 FR 

27998). The oblique pole test thus better 

emulates real world crash conditions 

than a perpendicular impact. NHTSA 

estimates that 311 lives would be saved 

by the oblique pole test using a 50th 

percentile adult male dummy and a 5th 

percentile adult female dummy,53 while 

224 lives would be saved by a 

perpendicular test using the same 

dummies. At a 3 percent discount rate, 

the cost per equivalent life saved is 

$1.84 million for an oblique impact test 

requirement, and $2.11 million for a 

perpendicular test requirement. At a 7 

percent discount rate, the cost per 

equivalent life saved is $2.31 million for 

the oblique test, and $2.65 million for a 

perpendicular test. 

Combination and other SIABs will 

generally be more protective if the 

agency adopted a 75-degree vehicle-topole test instead of a 90-degree one, 

particularly if the SID–IIs and ES–2re 

dummies were both used in the pole 

test. A SIAB just wide enough to meet 

a perpendicular pole test may be less 

protective in an oblique crash, as the 

occupant in an oblique crash will move 

laterally and forward at an angle rather 

than moving strictly laterally into the air 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

54Using two dummies in a 90-degree pole test 

will not necessarily lead to wider, more protective 

SIABs. If the SIAB were seat-mounted, the seatmounted SIAB would travel along the seat track 

with the dummies. A SIAB could be tuned to meet 

a 90-degree pole test with both dummies and not 

provide benefits in an oblique impact. 

55Other data from crash tests conducted in 

support of the NPRM showed that side air bags in 

a Ford Explorer and a Toyota Camry that were 

certified as meeting the requirements of the 90- 

degree pole test of FMVSS No. 201 did not inflate 

at all in an oblique (75 degree) test using a 5th 

percentile female dummy. The HIC results for the 

5th percentile female (SID–IIsFRG) dummy placed 

in the driver’s seats of these vehicles were in the 

thousands (13,125 and 8,706, respectively). 

56 ‘‘Rollover Ejection Mitigation Using Inflatable 

Tubular Structures,’’ Simula, et al., 1998; ‘‘Status of 

NHTSA’s Ejection Mitigation Research Program,’’

Willke, et al., ESV 2003. 

57About 60 percent of the partial ejections 

occurred to belted occupants. 

bag.54 Some torso air bags may need to 

be redesigned to extend the air pocket 

further forward toward the A-pillar to 

provide coverage in a 75-degree oblique 

test. The VW Jetta, Honda Accord, and 

Subaru Forester received ‘‘Good’’ ratings 

in IIHS’s side impact consumer 

information program when tested with 

the SID–IIs in a perpendicular impact. 

However, in our 214 fleet testing 

program with the SID–IIs, the VW Jetta 

resulted in a pelvic force value of 7,876 

N, which exceeds the 5,525 N criterion 

of this final rule. In an oblique test, the 

SID–IIs in the Honda Accord measured 

a pelvic force value of 10,848 N. The 

Subaru Forester tested obliquely with 

the SID–IIs resulted in an abdominal 

deflection value of 45 mm. The oblique 

pole test will require these vehicles to 

provide protection of the 5th percentile 

adult female’s abdomen/pelvis areas; 

these improvements would not 

generally result from a 90-degree test. 

Other examples of how an oblique 

versus perpendicular impact can affect 

a vehicle’s ability to provide head 

protection were provided in the NPRM. 

In a 75-degree test of a Nissan Maxima 

with the ES–2 dummy, the head of the 

dummy rotated into the pole 

notwithstanding the presence of a 

combination head/thorax side impact 

air bag. The HIC score was 5,254. In a 

90-degree test, the same model year 

Maxima produced a HIC score of 130.55

In our test program, four of the 10 

vehicles tested with the SID–IIs had side 

air curtains that exceeded 1,000 HIC in 

the oblique impact (see the agency’s 

docketed technical report on the test 

program, summarized in Section IV of 

this preamble, for a full discussion of 

the test program). The SID–IIs rotated 

around the front edge of the air bag or 

hit the front-most pocket of the curtain, 

which allowed for the dummy’s head to 

contact a portion of the air curtain/ 

tether interface that did not cushion the 

impact. HIC values were in the 

thousands. These curtains will be more 

protective when designed to meet 

oblique pole test requirements. 

Wider and more protective side air 

curtains resulting from an oblique pole 

test will be beneficial in reducing partial 

occupant ejection through side 

windows.56 There were 5,400 ejected 

fatalities through front side windows in 

2001. The fatality rate for an ejected 

vehicle occupant is three times as great 

as that for an occupant who remains 

inside of the vehicle. The best way to 

reduce complete ejection is for 

occupants to wear their safety belts. 

However, of the 5,400 ejected fatalities 

through front side windows, 2,200 were 

from partial ejections. Fatal injuries 

from partial ejection can occur even to 

belted occupants,57 when their head 

protrudes outside the window and 

strikes the ground in a rollover or strikes 

the striking object (e.g., pole or a taller 

vehicle hood) in a side impact. Window 

curtains that meet the oblique pole test 

will better protect against these partial 

ejections. 

We are not supportive of maintaining 

both the 75-degree oblique pole test and 

the FMVSS No. 201 pole test in the 

standard, as suggested by Mr. Watson. 

While the inclusion of both tests could 

provide more assurance of occupant 

safety, we are concerned whether the 

test burdens are justified. Although we 

found in our testing that some air bag 

systems that met the FMVSS No. 201 

pole test did not deploy the air bag in 

the agency’s 75-degree oblique pole test, 

we do not expect the opposite trend 

from the adoption of this regulation. 

Vehicles will be subject to testing by 

IIHS in its side impact consumer 

information program, which conducts 

90-degree MDB tests. Side air bag 

sensors will therefore be designed to 

sense such impact orientations. Further, 

even in the absence of the IIHS test, we 

believe that the use of two test 

dummies, two seating procedures and 

an oblique angle in the FMVSS No. 214 

pole test will induce the use of sensor 

designs and mounting locations that 

will be sufficiently robust to detect both 

75-degree and 90-degree impacts. 

3. Positioning the Seat for the Test 

A. Fore-and-Aft Seating Position 

For the oblique pole test, the agency 

proposed to position the test dummies 

fore-and-aft along the vehicle seat track, 

according to the current FMVSS No. 214 

seat positioning procedure, as opposed 

to the procedure specified in FMVSS 

No. 201. The proposed procedure would 

place the seat at the full-forward 

position for the 5th percentile female 

dummy and the mid-track position for 

the 50th percentile male dummy. 

Public Citizen and Advocates 

supported NHTSA’s proposed seating 

position for the dummies. They believed 

that these positions would assure that 

air bags installed to comply with the 

standard would provide a relatively 

broad zone of protection. While 

supporting the two proposed seating 

positions, Mr. Watson believed that 

NHTSA should also test with the seating 

position fully forward, mid-track, and 

fully rearward to ensure the widest 

restraint coverage and the most robust 

sensing technique. 

DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance 

supported the mid-track seating position 

for the ES–2 dummy. However, the 

Alliance stated that the WorldSID test 

dummy should be positioned according 

to the seat track and seat back 

adjustment procedure based on a 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute (UMTRI) Seating 

Accommodation Model. The Alliance 

stated that the UMTRI model is based 

on a study of actual seating positions 

selected by drivers who are the same 

size as the 50th percentile adult male 

frontal dummy and the 5th percentile 

adult female frontal crash test dummy. 

In its comment, IIHS stated that the 

UMTRI seat position should be used for 

both the 5th female dummy and for the 

ES–2re 50th percentile dummy. IIHS 

believed that the UMTRI procedure is 

more representative of real world 

seating behavior, which IIHS stated is 

typically rearward of the proposed 

positions. IIHS stated that if the agency 

decides to use the mid-track position for 

the 50th percentile male dummy, the 

range of occupant sizes protected by the 

proposed head protection will not be as 

large as intended by the agency. 

Nissan did not support the proposed 

seat positions for the pole test. It 

believed that the dummy in the 

proposed positions might be close 

enough to the A- or B-pillar that these 

structures would interfere with the 

dummy’s head prior to contact with the 

pole. Nissan believes that this 

circumstance could result in reduced 

test repeatability, and it therefore 

recommended the seat positions used in 

the FMVSS No. 201 pole test procedure. 

Ferrari objected to the proposed 

positioning procedure for the 50th 

percentile male dummy. Ferrari stated 

that using only the control that 

primarily moves the seat in the foreand-aft direction, as proposed in the 

new procedure, changes the mid-point 

of the seating position from the current 

position. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51931 

58See 69 FR 8161. 

Agency response: After carefully 

reviewing the comments on seating 

procedures, the agency decided to adopt 

the NPRM proposal on positioning the 

test dummies fore-and-aft along the 

vehicle seat track. We agree with 

commenters that stated these positions 

(full forward for the 5th percentile 

female dummy; mid-track for the 50th 

percentile male dummy) would assure 

that air bags installed to comply with 

the standard would provide a relatively 

broad zone of protection. While we also 

agree with Mr. Watson’s suggestion that 

testing with the seat positioned in the 

full rearward position could provide 

even more coverage, we also had to 

maintain a level of practicability in 

establishing the requirements. 

Positioning the dummy further rearward 

could present potential B-pillar 

interference and repeatability issues, 

such as those cited by Nissan. Neither 

the agency nor the commenter has data 

to support such a proposal at this time. 

We were not persuaded by IIHS’s 

suggestion of using the UMTRI seat 

track and seat back adjustment for the 

SID–IIs and ES–2re dummies in the 

oblique pole test configuration. On 

February 23, 2004, NHTSA denied a 

petition for rulemaking to adopt the 

UMTRI procedure in FMVSS No. 214.58

The agency concluded that there was a 

lack of evidence supporting the UMTRI 

procedure. IIHS noted in their FMVSS 

No. 214 comments that the UMTRI 

seating procedure typically positions 

both dummies rearward of the proposed 

positions. However, no data was 

provided to support the claim that the 

UMTRI position provided more 

coverage than that proposed by the 

NPRM. Furthermore, no data was 

provided to support that such a change 

in seating procedure would be 

practicable, repeatable, and result in 

measurable benefit. Therefore, we are 

not considering it for incorporation into 

FMVSS No. 214. 

The Alliance’s recommendation on 

how to seat the WorldSID dummy is out 

of scope for this rulemaking. As 

previously discussed, research will need 

to be conducted in conjunction with the 

federalization of that dummy. 

In response to Nissan, we do not agree 

that the seating procedure would result 

in A- or B-pillar interference with the 

dummy’s head prior to contact with the 

pole. We have not observed this in our 

crash tests to date. Further, no data was 

submitted to the agency to support this 

claim. Furthermore, our testing has 

shown that the oblique pole test 

procedure is repeatable. Accordingly, 

we do not agree it is necessary to adopt 

the FMVSS No. 201 pole test seating 

procedure. 

In response to Ferrari, this final rule 

adopts the specification of the new 

positioning procedure that only the 

control that primarily moves the seat in 

the fore-and-aft direction is used to 

position the seat along the seat track. 

This procedure is simpler than the 

current FMVSS No. 214 procedure, and 

produces more repeatable seat 

positioning of complex power seats than 

the current procedure. We also believe 

that the differences, if any, in seat 

placement along the seat track will be 

minimal. The new procedure was used 

successfully in NHTSA’s 214 fleet 

testing program (see Section IV, supra). 

B. Head Restraints 

The Alliance and Honda requested 

clarification of the positioning of head 

restraints for all seating positions. In the 

proposed regulatory text, sections that 

involve seating the SID–IIs dummy in 

the front and rear seats (proposed 

8.3.2.2 and 8.3.3.2, respectively) state 

that any adjustable head restraint is to 

be positioned in the lowest and most 

forward position. However, sections that 

involve seating the ES–2re dummy in 

the front and rear seats (sections 8.3.1.2 

and 8.3.4) state that any adjustable head 

restraint is to be positioned in the 

lowest and most forward position for 

the front seat, and in its highest position 

for the rear seat. The Alliance 

recommended that any adjustable head 

restraints be placed in the 

manufacturers’ specified position, while 

Honda believes the head restraints 

should be positioned in its highest 

position, as currently required by 

FMVSS No. 214. 

Agency response: We concur with the 

need for clarification of the proposed 

regulatory text pertaining to head 

restraint positioning. The agency’s 

intent was to maintain the head restraint 

positioning currently used in the MDB 

test of FMVSS No. 214 for the ES–2re 

dummy (highest and most forward 

adjustment position) and to position the 

head restraint in the lowest and most 

forward position for the SID–IIs dummy. 

Accordingly, we have revised the ES–

2re regulatory text to reflect our intent. 

We were not persuaded by the 

Alliance’s recommendation to adopt the 

manufacturer’s specified position for 

head restraint adjustment. The highest 

position of adjustment has been used for 

the SID dummy in FMVSS No. 214 MDB 

tests for many years, and we do not 

anticipate any significant differences in 

head restraint interaction with the ES–

2re dummy that would warrant a change 

in specification. Furthermore, the 

Alliance did not provide a rationale for 

its requested change. 

The final rule does, however, add 

clarification in the regulatory text for 

head restraint designs with adjustable 

backset when tested with the ES–2re 

dummy. Proposed paragraph S8.3.1.2 is 

amended to specify that an adjustable 

head restraint must be positioned to its 

highest and most forward adjustment 

position. 

4. Impact Reference Line 

S10.12.2 states that the test vehicle is 

propelled sideways so that its line of 

forward motion forms an angle of 285 

(or 75) degrees (+/¥3 degrees) for the 

right (or left) side impact with the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. The 

angle is measured counterclockwise 

from the vehicle’s positive X-axis. The 

impact reference line is aligned with the 

center line of the rigid pole surface, as 

viewed in the direction of vehicle 

motion, so that, when the vehicle-topole contact occurs, the center line 

contacts the vehicle area bounded by 

two vertical planes parallel to and 38 

mm (1.5 inches) forward and aft of the 

impact reference line. 

Ferrari commented that contact 

between the center line of the rigid pole 

surface and the vehicle does not 

represent the initial contact between the 

pole and the vehicle. Ferrari requested 

that the proposed test procedure be 

modified so that the 38 mm tolerance 

refers to the initial impact point rather 

than the contact point of the center line 

of the pole surface as viewed from the 

direction of the vehicle motion. 

Agency response: Ferrari provided 

two schematics to illustrate its 

comments. (http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

docimages/pdf92/338984_web.pdf) In 

the schematics, Ferrari erroneously 

interpreted the forward motion of the 

test vehicle relative to the pole and 

initial impact point. In order to achieve 

the proper impact configuration, the test 

vehicle is propelled sideways at an 

angle (285 degrees for right and 75 

degree for left side impact) into the 

stationary pole, not perpendicular as 

shown in the schematics. To clarify the 

test set up, the agency has decided to 

include in the compliance test 

procedure a schematic depicting the 

impact configuration. 

5. Test Attitude 

The NPRM proposed to refine how 

the vehicle test attitude is determined. 

Currently, the vehicle attitude is defined 

by measurements made from the ground 

(a level surface) to a reference point 

placed on the vehicle body above each 

of the wheels. These measurements are 

made with the vehicle in the ‘‘as 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

delivered,’’ ‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘pre-test 

(or as tested)’’ conditions. The NPRM 

proposed that the method used to 

determine the test attitude be revised to 

align with that used in S13.3 of FMVSS 

No. 208. In that provision, a test attitude 

is determined based on door-sill angle 

measurements to control the vehicle’s 

pitch attitude. 

The NPRM also proposed to define 

the vehicle’s roll attitude by a left to 

right angle measured along a fixed 

reference point at the front and rear of 

the vehicle at the vehicle longitudinal 

center plane. NHTSA proposed these 

changes because measuring the angles 

more directly will better facilitate, and 

more accurately determine, the vehicle 

attitudes than by use of the method in 

current S6.2 of FMVSS No. 214 

(specifying test procedures for the MDB 

test). In the MDB test, the dummy and 

vehicle instrumentation, high-speed 

cameras, associated brackets and 

instrumentation umbilical lines that are 

added to the vehicle make it difficult 

sometimes to achieve the corridor 

between the as delivered and fully 

loaded attitudes, particularly at the right 

front position of the vehicle. The agency 

also requested comments on keeping the 

present method used to determine 

vehicle test attitude, but adding a ± 10 

mm tolerance. 

DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance 

commented that there was no proposed 

specification regarding the vehicle’s 

vertical position relative to ground. 

They believed that, for the MDB test, the 

resultant vehicle setup might not 

reproduce the intended relationship 

between the vehicle and MDB. The 

Alliance also stated that while the 

procedure would provide for 

measurement of vehicle pitch and roll 

attitude, it is not clear that this offers 

benefit with regard to execution of the 

test. The Alliance recommended that 

the current set procedure be retained 

with the following exception: in 

determining the fully loaded vehicle 

weight and attitude, there should be 

specifications on placing weights 

representing the necessary test dummies 

in the seating positions. Finally, the 

Alliance suggested that we provide 

direction on determining test attitude 

and ride height for vehicles equipped 

with dynamic suspension systems that 

adjust ride height based on vehicle 

velocity or that can be manually set by 

the driver for differing road conditions 

(e.g., off-road, luxury ride, etc.). 

Agency response: The vehicle attitude 

specifications assure that proper 

attitude is attained prior to impact. As 

stated in the NPRM, the agency believed 

that measuring pitch and roll angles 

more directly and more accurately 

determines the vehicle attitude than 

using the current method. The agency 

used the proposed method during the 

214 fleet testing program conducted in 

support of this final rule. The test 

vehicles were loaded in accordance 

with S8.1, using instructions in the draft 

test procedure. Ballast representing the 

weight of the test device was placed in 

the seat to determine the ‘‘fully loaded’’

condition. The proposed method 

yielded the intended result of assuring 

proper attitude in the agency’s pole 

tests. For these reasons, the agency has 

decided to adopt the proposed revised 

method for the pole test. 

For the MDB test, the agency agrees 

that a specification regarding the 

vehicle’s vertical position relative to 

ground is desirable. The agency has 

decided to maintain the present method 

used to determine vertical height 

measurements, but is adding a ± 10 mm 

tolerance. In addition, instructions to 

assure that conventional and dynamic 

suspensions are exercised prior to 

taking attitude measurements have been 

included in the agency’s test procedure. 

Regarding the Alliance’s suggestion 

that there should be specifications on 

placing weights representing the 

necessary test dummies in the seating 

positions, NHTSA currently allows 

various forms of ballast (other than an 

actual dummy). We do not believe that 

instructions are needed regarding what 

ballast should be used or how the 

ballast should be placed on the seat for 

proper weight distribution. For our 214 

fleet testing program, one test laboratory 

used a ‘‘ballast dummy’’ to attain the 

fully loaded condition, while another 

used sand bags. Both methods were 

acceptable, yielding valid results. 

6. Rear Seat Pole Test 

The NPRM proposed to apply the pole 

test to only the driver and front 

outboard passenger seats because years 

of conducting the optional pole test in 

FMVSS No. 201 have yielded 

substantial information about meeting 

pole test requirements for those seats, 

while far less information was known 

about the rear seat. The agency also 

believed that rear seat occupants make 

up a small percentage of the seriously 

injured occupants in side crashes. We 

also found it compelling that side air 

curtains generally cover both front and 

rear side window openings and thus 

would also afford some degree of head 

protection to rear seat occupants even in 

the absence of a test applying to the rear 

seat. We also recognized that applying 

the test to the rear seats would require 

at least twice as many tests per vehicle, 

increasing the cost and burden of the 

rulemaking, with minimal assured 

benefit. 

Consumers Union, Advocates, Public 

Citizen, and Mr. Watson expressed 

concern about not applying the test to 

the rear seat. The commenters believed 

that equivalent protection in side 

impacts should be provided to rear seat 

occupants. Advocates commented that 

either the agency must also apply the 

pole test to rear seats or should modify 

the current FMVSS No. 214 MDB so that 

it induces dynamic protection 

countermeasures for the rear seat 

occupants. Advocates and Public 

Citizen believed that an additional pole 

test would encourage manufacturers to 

install side air bags for rear occupants 

and improve protection for the elderly 

and children, who are often seated in 

the rear of the vehicle. Mr. Watson 

believed that air bag sensing 

arrangements may not be able to deploy 

the countermeasures for a variety of rear 

door impacts, and therefore 

recommended that the agency require 

an identical pole test for the rear seat 

occupant. Autoliv suggested possibly 

regulating only head impacts for rear 

seat occupants since few vehicles have 

been currently developed for rear seat 

thorax protection during a pole impact. 

Agency response: We have decided 

against applying the pole test to the rear 

seating positions. As noted earlier in 

this preamble, rear seat safety is 

enhanced by this final rule in several 

ways. For the first time, a HIC criterion 

is adopted for rear seat occupants. In 

addition, use of the SID–IIs (5th 

percentile adult female) test dummy in 

testing rear seats in the MDB test of 

FMVSS No. 214 (discussed later in this 

preamble) will assess the rear seat 

environment in protecting children, the 

elderly and small adults—a more 

vulnerable population than the mid-size 

adult male population—in rear seating 

positions in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. 

The SID–IIs dummy is more 

representative of rear seat occupants 

than SID, and the injury assessment 

reference values we will use with the 

dummy are set at levels that reflect the 

effect of aging on tolerance. 

However, with specific regard to the 

pole test, a consideration of several 

factors leads us to decline to apply the 

pole test to rear seating positions. 

Directly applying the pole test to the 

rear seat is not necessary for the pole 

test to enhance rear seat safety. Air 

curtains cover both front and rear side 

window openings, and are tethered to 

the A- and C-pillars of vehicles. 

Curtains tethered to the A- and C-pillars 

will be large enough to cover both front 

and rear side window openings and will 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51933 

59Additionally, Sec. 10301 of SAFETEA–LU 

requires the Secretary to issue by October 1, 2009 

an ejection mitigation final rule reducing complete 

and partial ejections of occupants from outboard 

seating positions (49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1)). 

60FMVSS No. 201 requires each armrest to meet 

one of the following: (a) Be constructed with 

energy-absorbing material and deflect or collapse 

laterally at least 50 mm without permitting contact 

with the underlying rigid material; (b) be 

constructed with energy-absorbing material that 

deflects or collapses to within 32 mm of a rigid test 

panel surface without permitting contact with any 

rigid material, and the rigid material between 13 

and 32 mm from the panel surface must have a 

minimum vertical height of not less than 25 mm; 

or (c) along not less than 50 continuous mm of its 

length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically 

in side elevation, provide at least 55 mm of 

coverage within the pelvic impact area. 

afford protection to both front and rear 

seat occupants in side impacts. 

We believe that manufacturers will 

increasingly install air curtains in their 

vehicles because air curtains can 

potentially be used as a countermeasure 

in preventing ejection in rollovers. 

(‘‘NHTSA Vehicle Safety Rulemaking 

Priorities and Supporting Research: 

2003–2006,’’ July 2003, Docket 15505.) 

NHTSA has announced that it is 

developing a proposal for an ejection 

mitigation containment requirement.59

NHTSA believes that side curtains 

installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214’s 

pole test could readily be developed to 

satisfy the desired properties of a 

countermeasure. (NHTSA report 

‘‘Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of 

Rollovers,’’ supra.) We believe that 

manufacturers will install curtains in 

increasing numbers of vehicles in 

response to this final rule, the voluntary 

commitment, and in anticipation of 

NHTSA’s ejection mitigation 

rulemaking. The curtains will provide 

head protection to front and rear seat 

occupants in side impacts. 

We have also decided against 

applying the pole test to rear seating 

positions because, as noted in the 

NPRM, according to 1999 and 2000 

Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) data, the front outboard seating 

positions account for 89.2 percent of 

total fatalities and 88.8 percent of total 

injured occupants in passenger cars, and 

86.6 percent and 87.6 percent of total 

fatalities and total injured occupants in 

LTVs. While these are for all crash 

conditions, the percentages for side 

impacts with narrow objects are similar. 

In nearside crashes, rear occupants 

make up 7.3 percent, 10.2 percent and 

4.4 percent of seriously injured persons 

in crashes with passenger cars, LTVs 

and narrow objects, respectively. As 

stated in the NPRM (69 FR 28011), the 

1997–2001 NASS CDS annualized 

fatality distribution for rear outboard 

occupants indicates there were 22 

fatalities caused by a vehicle-to-pole 

side crash, 7 of which were due to head 

injury. 

In addition, we are not applying the 

pole test to rear positions out of a 

concern that more needs to be known 

about seat-mounted SIABs in rear 

seating positions. Currently, almost no 

vehicle has seat-mounted air bag 

systems in rear seats. If a pole test were 

applied to the rear seat, seat-mounted 

SIABs might emerge to meet chest 

protection requirements. At this time, 

we have limited information about the 

performance of rear seat-mounted air 

bag systems in meeting the TWG 

performance guidelines. We believe that 

more has to be learned about the risk to 

children in rear seating positions before 

we proceed with adopting a requirement 

that will encourage the installation of 

seat-mounted SIABs as a 

countermeasure to that requirement. 

7. Door Closed 

FMVSS No. 214 currently prohibits 

any side door that is struck by the MDB 

from separating totally from the vehicle 

(currently in S5.3.1 of the standard). 

The standard also requires any door 

(including a rear hatchback or tailgate) 

that is not struck by the moving 

deformable barrier to meet the following 

requirements: the door shall not 

disengage from the latched position; the 

latch shall not separate from the striker, 

and the hinge components shall not 

separate from each other or from their 

attachment to the vehicle; and neither 

the latch nor the hinge systems of the 

door shall pull out of their anchorages. 

The NPRM proposed to apply the same 

door separation/opening prohibitions to 

vehicles tested in the vehicle-to-pole 

tests. 

The only comments on the proposal 

were from Advocates and Public 

Citizen, which opposed the proposal. 

The commenters believed that, to 

improve ‘‘anti-ejection 

countermeasures’’ the standard should 

not permit struck doors to become 

unlatched in the pole test. 

Agency response: This final rule does 

not make a change from the proposal. 

NHTSA has not observed the struck 

door unlatching in the optional pole test 

of FMVSS No. 201, or in the agency’s 

vehicle pole tests discussed in the 

technical report on the test program. 

The test data indicate that vehicle 

manufacturers are already designing 

their vehicles such that the struck door 

will not unlatch during the pole test. 

8. FMVSS No. 201 Pole Test 

FMVSS No. 201 specifies an optional 

90-degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test 

using a SID–H3 driver dummy (1000 

HIC36 test criterion). The NPRM 

proposed to amend FMVSS No. 201 to 

exclude vehicles certified to FMVSS No. 

214’s oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole 

test from the 90-degree, 29 km/h (18 

mph) pole test in FMVSS No. 201. The 

agency believed that a vehicle that met 

the oblique 32 km/h (20 mph) pole test 

would also meet FMVSS No. 201’s 90- 

degree 29 km/h (18 mph) test. Thus, the 

agency proposed to eliminate the 

FMVSS No. 201 optional pole test for 

vehicles certified to the FMVSS No. 214 

oblique pole test, to delete an 

unnecessary test burden on 

manufacturers. 

Advocates, AIAM and the Alliance 

supported the agency’s proposal to 

exclude vehicles meeting an FMVSS No. 

214 pole test from FMVSS No. 201’s 90- 

degree, 29 km/h (18 mph) pole test. 

Advocates agreed with the NPRM that a 

vehicle meeting the proposed pole test 

would also meet the optional pole test 

of FMVSS No. 201. 

Honda suggested a further exclusion 

of vehicles from a requirement of 

FMVSS No. 201. Honda asked NHTSA 

to consider excluding vehicles from the 

armrest requirements of S5.5.1 if the 

vehicles comply with the oblique pole 

test of FMVSS No. 214. Honda believes 

that: ‘‘If a vehicle meets the proposed 

requirements, that compliance should 

supercede the armrest requirements of 

FMVSS 201.’’60

Agency response: The FMVSS No. 214 

oblique pole test encompasses and goes 

beyond the FMVSS No. 201 pole crash 

test and thus renders unnecessary the 

latter test. Seat-mounted side impact air 

bags that deploy into an area far enough 

forward to cushion a 5th percentile 

female dummy’s head in a 32 km/h (20 

mph) oblique impact are also likely to 

protect a 50th percentile male’s head in 

a perpendicular one. Similarly, an air 

curtain tethered to the A- and C-pillars 

that meets an oblique crash test is also 

likely to provide coverage in a 

perpendicular crash. Accordingly, this 

final rule adopts the proposed 

amendment to FMVSS No. 201. It 

should be noted that targets near the 

stowed HPS are still subject to the head 

form test of FMVSS No. 201, conducted 

at the 19.3 km/h (12 mph) test speed 

specified in that standard. 

This final rule does not make Honda’s 

suggested deletion of the arm rest 

requirements of FMVSS No. 201. The 

suggested change was not proposed in 

the NPRM. 

9. Quasi Static Test 

The Alliance, AIAM, Lotus, Maserati, 

and Ferrari suggested that NHTSA 

delete the quasi-static test requirements 

from FMVSS No. 214 if the pole test is 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

61 Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Impact 

Crash, FMVSS 214 TTI(d) Improvements and Side 

air Bags, NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 810 

748, Washington, DC 2007. 

62 Kahane, C.J., An Evaluation of Side Structure 

Improvements in Response to Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard 214, NHTSA Technical 

Report No. DOT HS 806 314, Washington, DC 1982. 

63Since the side crash sensor was unable to 

deploy the air bags in the oblique pole test 

configuration in the first test, the side curtain air 

bags were deployed remotely. 

64Moreover, since the industry’s voluntary 

commitment to install side air bags in vehicles does 

not apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb), applying the pole test to the 

vehicles assures that SIABs will be provided. 

adopted. (A summary of FMVSS No. 

214’s current requirements is in 

Appendix B of this preamble.) The 

quasi-static requirements limit the 

extent to which the side door structure 

of a vehicle is pushed into the passenger 

compartment during a side impact. The 

standard requires each side door to 

resist crush forces that are applied by a 

piston pressing a 300 mm (12 inch) steel 

cylinder against the door’s outer surface 

in a laboratory test. Since the 

requirement became effective in 1973, 

vehicle manufacturers have generally 

chosen to meet the requirement by 

reinforcing the side doors with metal 

beams. Ferrari stated, ‘‘The purpose of 

the static door crush resistance test in 

the existing FMVSS No. 214 is to 

guarantee the ability of the vehicle to 

provide some kind of protection in a 

side impact against a narrow object.’’

Commenters believed that the pole test 

would assess the same performance, 

making the quasi-static test redundant 

and burdensome. 

In contrast, Public Citizen 

recommended that the agency evaluate 

the potential for adding an intrusion 

limit to the proposed pole test, in 

addition to the dummy injury criteria. 

The suggested requirement would 

regulate the amount of pole intrusion 

into the occupant survival space. Public 

Citizen believes that the level of 

intrusion into the occupant space is 

closely correlated with the level of 

occupant injury risk. 

Agency response: This final rule does 

not remove the quasi-static test from 

FMVSS No. 214. Removing the test is 

beyond the scope of the NPRM. Further, 

there is a safety need for the test. To 

meet the quasi-static test, vehicle 

manufacturers have equipped vehicles 

with side door beams which transmit 

the force sideways to the struck vehicle, 

thus reducing the amount of intrusion 

toward the occupant and slowing down 

the rate of that intrusion.61 NHTSA 

found that the side door beams were 14 

percent effective in reducing fatality risk 

for nearside and farside occupants in 

single-vehicle side impacts.62 When this 

group of crashes was further limited to 

impacts with a single fixed object, 

fatality reduction was 23 percent. The 

agency believes that the beam acts like 

an internal guard to allow a car to slide 

past a pole or tree, with a longer, 

shallower crush pattern on the car. 

Beams were also found to be effective in 

lower-speed multivehicle crashes, 

reducing the risk of nonfatal injuries. 

Kahane (2007). The quasi-static test is 

needed, particularly for doors of the 

vehicle that are not impacted by the 

pole in the oblique pole test (such as the 

rear compartment doors). 

This final rule does not add an 

intrusion limit to the pole test 

requirements adopted today. Adding an 

intrusion limit is beyond the scope of 

the NPRM. Further, not enough 

information is known at this time about 

the need for an intrusion limit, given 

that the injury criteria of the pole test 

act to limit the risk of injury to an 

occupant. 

10. Vehicle Exclusions 

The agency proposed subjecting 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less to the oblique pole 

test, with certain exceptions. The 

agency proposed excluding: motor 

homes, tow trucks, dump trucks, 

ambulances and other emergency 

rescue/medical vehicles (including 

vehicles with fire-fighting equipment), 

vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts, 

vehicles with raised or altered roof 

designs, and vehicles which have no 

doors, or exclusively have doors that are 

designed to be easily attached or 

removed so that the vehicle can be 

operated without doors. The agency 

believed that many vehicles within 

these categories tend to have unusual 

side structures that may not be suitable 

for pole testing or have features that 

could pose practicability problems in 

meeting the test. Comments were 

requested on the need to exclude other 

types of vehicles from the pole test, 

such as convertibles that lack a roof 

structure enabling the installation of an 

air curtain. 

The proposed exclusions are adopted, 

except to the extent discussed below in 

this section. 

i. GVWR. Advocates and Public 

Citizen supported the inclusion of 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, while the Alliance 

believed that vehicles above a GVWR of 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb) should be excluded. 

The Alliance believed that the agency 

did not show that the requirement 

would be practicable for vehicles with 

a GVWR above 3,855 kg (8,500 lb), and 

also stated that a safety need for 

applying the pole test to those vehicles 

has not been shown. 

Agency response: After consideration 

of the comments and test data from the 

NHTSA 214 fleet testing program (see 

Section IV of this preamble, supra) and 

other information, we are adopting the 

proposal that the performance 

requirements for the oblique pole test 

should apply to all vehicles with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. 

One of the vehicle models the agency 

tested in its vehicle research program 

had a 4,082 kg (9,000 lb) GVWR. This 

was a model year 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 

equipped with side curtain air bags. The 

agency tested this vehicle in two 

vehicle-to-pole tests with the ES–2re 

dummy. In the first test, the side curtain 

air bags did not deploy, and 

consequently, the ES–2re dummy 

resulted in high injury measures, 

including a HIC of 5,748, 47 mm of rib 

deflection, and a lower spine 

acceleration of 86 g. The test results 

demonstrated a need for improved 

sensors and side impact protection for 

the occupants of this vehicle. In the 

second test, using the same vehicle 

model, the side curtain air bags were 

deployed remotely at 12 msec,63 and the 

resulting HIC value was 331. The results 

of this test showed that the deployment 

of the side curtain air bag resulted in 

significant HIC reductions for the ES–

2re dummy (from 5,748 to 331). The ES–

2re dummy was chosen for use in the 

agency’s testing since it is likely to be 

the most challenging pole test 

configuration of the two required. The 

ES–2re is equipped with more 

instrumentation in the abdomen and 

thorax, and its larger mass requires more 

energy management by the restraint 

system. Although the rib deflections and 

abdominal force measurements for the 

ES–2re exceeded the IARVs, the vehicle 

was not equipped with a thorax side air 

bag. We believe that these measures 

would be improved with a thorax side 

air bag, and possible structural 

enhancements. 

The agency does not agree with the 

Alliance that vehicles over 3,855 kg 

(8,500 lb) GVWR should be excluded 

from the pole test. In side impacts with 

poles and trees, the objects struck are 

typically taller than the striking vehicle. 

There are no indications of any lesser 

safety need for side impact protection 

for these vehicles. These vehicles are 

driven on the same roads and at the 

same times as other LTVs, and are thus 

subject to the same safety risks as other 

LTVs. NHTSA is not aware of any 

special characteristic of these vehicles 

that would reduce such risks.64 In 

addition, the Alliance did not suggest 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51935 

65 Data source: FARS 1999–2003. Model years 

1998–2002 were used. Total registration years (in 

millions) were 140.8 for all other passenger cars and 

4.7 for convertibles. The fatalities per million 

registration years in single vehicle side crashes 

were 11.32 for all other passenger cars and 16.71 

for convertibles. The fatalities per million 

registration years in single vehicle side ‘‘pole/tree’’

crashes were 6.12 for all other passenger cars and 

9.64 for convertibles. 

66The ES–2re dummy was chosen for use in the 

agency’s testing since it is likely to be more 

challenging pole test configuration than the SID–IIs 

test. We determined that it would dbe more difficult 

for seat-mounted systems to meet the performance 

criteria using the ES–2 than when tested with the 

SID–IIs. The ES–2re is equipped with more 

instrumentation in the abdomen and thorax, and its 

larger mass requires more energy management by 

the restraint system. 

67 Injury criteria are: HIC 1000, chest deflection 

44 mm, abdominal force 2500 N, and pelvic force 

6000 N. 

why the pole test might be practicable 

for vehicles with lower GVWR, but not 

for vehicles with a GVWR above 3,855 

kg (8,500 lb). We believe manufacturers 

can employ comparable restraint 

systems and countermeasure strategies 

to comply with the oblique pole test. 

However, the test of the Dodge Ram 

2500 (9,000 lb GVWR) indicated that 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb) may need more time 

than other vehicles to meet the pole test 

requirements, since the vehicles have 

never been regulated under FMVSS No. 

214’s dynamic requirements and are not 

subject to the industry’s voluntary 

commitment to install side air bags. 

These vehicles may need more 

structural enhancements than other 

vehicles since they will be newly 

subject to side crash requirements, and 

a demanding pole test at that. 

Accordingly, this final rule provides 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb) until the last year of 

the phase-in to meet the pole test 

requirements. 

ii. Convertibles. The Alliance, AIAM, 

Nissan, DaimlerChrysler and Lotus 

recommended the exclusion of 

convertible vehicles from the pole test. 

The Alliance stated that we did not 

demonstrate it is practicable to 

implement countermeasures, while 

meeting the TWG OOP guidelines. It 

also believed that convertible vehicles 

should be excluded from all 

requirements because the lack of roof 

structure affects the overall response of 

a vehicle in a pole test, not just the HIC 

response. 

AIAM believed that the inherent 

design constraints of convertibles 

prevent the compliance of the proposed 

pole test. Similarly, Nissan believed that 

convertibles lack the structural 

components necessary to store and 

deploy a curtain air bag and that these 

vehicles should be excluded from the 

HIC response requirement in the pole 

test. DaimlerChrysler believed that 

convertibles should be excluded 

because, the commenter stated, it is not 

practicable within the architectural 

limitations of convertibles to provide 

the supplemental structure to the 

vehicle to replace what the roof and roof 

rail can contribute in sedans and coupes 

to reduce penetration by the pole into 

the occupant compartment. Lotus 

commented that the lightweight 

performance convertible type vehicle 

would not be able to comply with the 

pole test requirements without the 

introduction of some new, and as yet 

unknown, technology. 

Autoliv commented that it is 

currently working on developing a 

restraint system to protect occupants in 

a pole impact for applications such as 

a convertible. Autoliv stated that the 

systems do not, however, address the 

structural challenges that may be 

involved in applying the pole test 

requirement to all vehicles that lack a 

roof structure. 

Agency response: After careful 

consideration of the comments, NHTSA 

has decided against excluding 

convertibles from the pole test 

requirements. In our comparative 

analysis between convertibles and all 

other passenger cars in side impact 

crashes with fixed objects, it was found 

that 11.3 percent of convertible fatalities 

are from single vehicle side impacts into 

poles/trees, compared to 6.5 percent of 

other passenger car fatalities from single 

vehicle side impacts into poles/trees. 

The fatality rate 65 from single vehicle 

side impacts into poles/trees is 9.64 for 

convertibles, and 6.12 for all other 

passenger cars. When specifically 

looking at pole/tree fatality rates, 

convertibles are 58 percent higher than 

all other passenger cars. In general, 

NHTSA’s crash data indicate that 

convertibles have higher rates of 

fatalities in run-off-the-road type 

crashes, such as single vehicle side 

impacts, rollovers, etc. Consequently, 

requiring enhanced protection against 

tree and pole side impacts will be 

paramount in improving the safety of 

these vehicles. 

We have also observed head/thorax 

countermeasures that are effective and 

practicable for installation in 

convertible body types. While we agree 

with Nissan that roof-rail design air 

curtains may not be practicable to 

deploy and store in a convertible 

vehicle, we do believe that head/thorax 

air bag systems, or even door-mounted 

inflatable curtains, as introduced in the 

2006 model year Volvo C70 convertible, 

have merit. In our 214 fleet testing 

program, we included two convertible 

vehicle models in our crash test matrix. 

These were the 2005 model year Saab 9–

3 convertible and 2005 model year 

Volkswagen Beetle. Both vehicle models 

were tested in the oblique pole test with 

the ES–2re dummy.66 In each case, the 

vehicle was able to meet the 

requirements of this final rule and 

demonstrated that compliance with the 

requirements for both head and chest 

injury criteria is practicable. For the 

Saab, HIC was 254, chest deflection was 

40 mm, abdominal force was 841 N, and 

pelvic force was 2914 N. For the Beetle, 

HIC was 315, chest deflection was 37 

mm, abdominal force was 1018 N, and 

pelvic force was 3815 N.67 The Saab 9–

3 and Volkswagen Beetle demonstrated 

practicability along a range of the 

convertible cost spectrum. This fact, 

combined with the higher fatality risk 

mentioned earlier, leads NHTSA to 

believe that head/thorax 

countermeasures will be at least as costeffective for convertibles as they are for 

other vehicles. We are not persuaded 

that solutions are unknown or not 

available to convertibles as a whole, as 

suggested by Lotus. 

In response to the Alliance’s concern 

about meeting the TWG OOP guidelines, 

we note that vehicle manufacturers for 

both the Saab 9–3 and the VW Beetle 

reported that they comply with the 

TWG OOP guidelines according to our 

2005 Buying a Safer Car information. 

Therefore, we believe that the agency 

has demonstrated practicability of the 

pole test and of meeting the head and 

chest requirements. Our tests have 

shown that the lack of a roof structure 

in the pole test was not an 

insurmountable design obstacle for 

providing improved side crash 

protection. Therefore, we conclude that 

HIC, and all other applicable injury 

measures, should be regulated in this 

test. 

iii. Proximity to a Door 

Maserati and Ferrari noted that under 

the current S3(e)(1) of FMVSS No. 214’s 

quasi-static test, a vehicle need not meet 

the static test requirements for any side 

door located so that no point on a 10- 

inch horizontal longitudinal line 

passing through and bisected by the Hpoint of a manikin placed in any seat 

falls within the transverse, horizontal 

projection of the door’s opening. The 

commenters believed that under that 

provision, a vehicle is excluded from 

the static test requirement if its side 

door is located so that the H-point of the 

manikin is below the sill of the vehicle. 

Ferrari stated, ‘‘if a vehicle is exempt 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51936 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

68This accords with the amendments set forth in 

the agency’s final rule on ‘‘Vehicles Built in Two 

or More Stages,’’ 70 FR 7414, February 14, 2005, 

Docket 5673. The February 14, 2005 final rule also 

added a new process under which intermediate and 

final-stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain 

temporary exemptions from dynamic performance 

requirements (49 CFR part 555). 

under current S3(e), it should likewise 

be exempt from the proposed pole test.’’

Agency response: We do not agree 

with Maserati and Ferrari that an 

exclusion from the pole test 

requirements is appropriate if the Hpoint of a manikin placed in any seat is 

below the sill of the vehicle, and thus 

does not fall ‘‘within the transverse, 

horizontal projection of the door’s 

opening.’’ The agency’s rationale for the 

exclusion in question from the static test 

does not apply to the pole test. 

In the June 14, 1991 FMVSS No. 214 

final rule that adopted the exclusion (56 

FR 27427), the agency stated that there 

was little safety benefit from having a 

side door beam requirement for those 

door openings that are unlikely to have 

occupants sitting near them (i.e., within 

10 inches of the door opening). In the 

static test, the loading device is centered 

on the door opening, and a load is 

applied until a specified load is 

achieved. The door must prevent 

intrusion of the door structure. If no 

occupant will be seated within 10 

inches of the door opening, the 

requirement limiting intrusion to 10 

inches is unnecessary. (As to whether 

the exclusion should apply to situations 

where the manikin is seated within 10 

inches of the door, but below the sill, 

will not be addressed today.) 

In the oblique pole test, the pole is 

aligned with the head CG of the seated 

dummy. An occupant who is seated 

‘‘outboard’’ next to a door but below the 

transverse, horizontal projection of the 

door’s opening could suffer injuries, 

especially head injury, in a tree/pole 

impact if side air bags or other 

countermeasures were not installed. 

Accordingly, the pole test requirement 

will yield meaningful results for the 

vehicles in question, and the exclusion 

will not be extended as requested. 

iv. Removable Doors 

The Alliance and DaimlerChrysler 

believed that vehicles without doors or 

easily removable doors, now excluded 

from the MDB and quasi-static tests 

under S2(c) and S3(e)(4) of the current 

standard, respectively, should also be 

excluded from the pole test since the 

lack of door structure makes meeting the 

test requirements impracticable. On the 

other hand, Advocates objected to 

excluding vehicles with no or 

removable doors since, the commenter 

believed, the exclusion would allow 

manufacturers to avoid providing 

adequate side impact protection. 

Agency response: We agree with 

excluding vehicles without doors or 

easily removable doors from the oblique 

pole test since the lack of door structure 

makes meeting the test requirements 

impracticable, as suggested by 

DaimlerChrysler. No data were provided 

by Advocates, or other commenters, to 

suggest that there are engineering 

solutions or countermeasures to meet 

the dynamic pole test requirements for 

vehicles without doors or easily 

removable doors. We believe that 

applying the pole test to those vehicles 

would effectively eliminate them from 

the marketplace. 

v. Vehicles With Partitions 

NTEA recommended an additional 

exclusion of vehicles equipped with a 

partition behind the front seat area. 

NTEA believed that ‘‘a bulkhead or 

partition will almost certainly invalidate 

any chassis manufacturer’s compliance 

statement that may be available for a 

vehicle equipped with side impact 

protection such as a side curtain air 

bag.’’

Agency response: We do not agree 

with an exclusion of partition-equipped 

vehicles. We believe the exclusion is too 

broad and could encompass more 

vehicles than necessary. NTEA noted 

that the affected vehicles typically 

include panel vans with a bulkhead to 

separate the front seat occupants from 

bulk cargo placed in the rear, or buses 

with a partition separating the bus 

driver from the rest of the passenger 

compartment. We note that the vehicles 

also include police vehicles, taxis, and 

limousines. Although we acknowledge 

that a bulkhead or partition installed by 

a second-stage manufacturer or alterer is 

incompatible with some current side 

curtain air bag systems tethered from 

the A- to C-pillars, second-stage 

manufacturers and alterers have 

alternatives, discussed below, that 

would enable them to certify to the pole 

test. 

We believe that incomplete vehicles 

and completed cargo vans will be 

available with seat-mounted or doormounted head/thorax air bag systems. 

Not all cargo vans will have side curtain 

air bag systems that are tethered from 

the A- to the C-pillar. Cargo van 

manufacturers are not likely to install Ato C-pillar side curtain air bag systems 

since these vehicles have no rear seats 

or rear window openings. (Likewise, 

small bus manufacturers are not likely 

to extend side air curtains the full 

length of the bus.) Since the pole test is 

only applied to the driver and right 

front passenger seating locations, 

incomplete cargo van manufacturers 

will likely certify the vehicles to the 

pole test using seat-mounted SIABs (or 

may develop air curtain technology that 

involve designs other than tethering the 

curtain to the A- and C-pillars). A 

partition can be installed in these 

vehicles without invalidating the 

incomplete manufacturer’s compliance 

statement. 

We also note that this final rule 

provides alterers and multi stage vehicle 

manufacturers an extra year of lead time 

to accommodate any necessary 

changes.68 Between now and that date, 

they can work with manufacturers of 

incomplete and complete vehicles to 

develop seat-mounted SIABs and other 

technologies that would enable them to 

install the life-saving devices in vehicles 

that have partitions. 

vi. Wheelchair Restraints 

NMEDA believed that we should 

exclude vehicles with wheelchair 

restraints that allow the wheelchair to 

be used as a designated seating position. 

NMEDA noted ‘‘many wheelchair users 

drive their vehicles from a wheelchair 

or ride in the front row passenger 

position, again in a wheelchair. In these 

cases, the wheelchair is secured to the 

vehicle floor, and the occupant is 

restrained with a type 2 seat belt 

assembly.’’

Agency response: An exclusion of any 

vehicle with wheelchair restraints is 

overly broad. However, we agree that 

vehicles in which a wheelchair is to be 

used in place of the driver’s or right 

front passenger’s seating position 

should be excluded from the pole test 

for that seating position. The vehicles 

are excluded out of practicability 

concerns. If a seat that had seatmounted SIABs were removed from a 

front outboard seating position, the 

vehicle would no longer have the 

countermeasure installed to meet the 

pole test. Installing a complying air 

curtain in these vehicles is likely 

beyond the capabilities of most small 

businesses modifying the vehicle. Even 

if the vehicle were originally 

manufactured with an air curtain, a 

vehicle tested to the oblique pole test 

with the test dummy in a wheelchair 

instead of the OEM driver or passenger 

seat might not meet the test 

requirements. Accordingly, vehicles in 

which the seat for the driver or right 

front passenger has been removed and 

wheelchair restraints installed in place 

of the seat are excluded from meeting 

the oblique pole test at that removed 

seating position. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51937 

69FMVSS No. 216 defines ‘‘altered roof’’ as: ‘‘the 

replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original 

roof has been removed, in part or in total, and 

replaced by a roof that is higher than the original 

roof. The replacement roof on a motor vehicle 

whose original roof has been replaced, in whole or 

in part, by a roof that consists of glazing materials, 

such as those in T-tops and sunroofs, and is located 

at the level of the original roof, is not considered 

to be an altered roof.’’ FMVSS No. 216 states: 

‘‘Raised roof means, with respect to a roof which 

includes an area that protrudes above the 

surrounding exterior roof structure, that protruding 

area of the roof.’’

70 Vehicles with lowered floors are currently not 

excluded from the MDB test. Alterers and 

multistage manufacturers have been certifying their 

vehicles with lowered floors to the MDB test since 

1998. Given the practicability of meeting the 

current MDB test, this final rule does not exclude 

lowered floor vehicles from the applicability of the 

MDB test adopted today. 

vii. Altered (Modified) Roof or Lowered 

Floor 

The agency proposed excluding 

vehicles with altered or raised roof 

designs from the pole test, and proposed 

using the definitions for ‘‘altered roof’’

and ‘‘raised roof’’ set forth in FMVSS 

No. 216, ‘‘Roof crush resistance.’’ 69

NMEDA suggested that vehicles with 

altered or raised roofs should be 

excluded from both the HIC and 

thoracic requirements because, the 

commenter believed, side air bag 

systems may have to be disabled to 

accommodate the raised/altered roof 

conversion. Similarly, the commenter 

believed that modifiers lowering the 

floor by modifying the SIAB sensor 

system as originally installed would 

also have an extremely difficult time to 

certify. 

Agency response: We agree that 

vehicles that have had the roof rail or 

floor rail modified should be excluded 

from the pole test.70 The vehicles are 

excluded out of practicability concerns, 

because roof rails and floor rails are 

typically integral parts of side impact 

protection systems. Modifying the roof 

or floor rail structures may affect the 

vehicle’s performance in meeting the 

oblique pole test requirements. 

This final rule slightly expands the 

proposed definition of ‘‘altered roof,’’

because the FMVSS No. 216 definition 

was too narrow to meet the intent of the 

agency in excluding vehicles with 

altered roof rails. The proposed 

definition of altered roof (from FMVSS 

No. 216) only applied to a replacement 

roof that is higher than the original roof. 

We have modified the definition such 

that it is not incumbent on the 

replacement roof being higher than the 

original roof. There would be 

practicability issues in meeting the pole 

test for entities modifying the original 

roof rails of a vehicle even if the 

replacement roof were not higher than 

the original roof. In addition, if the 

original roof rail were modified, there 

would also be practicability problems 

for entities using glazing materials in 

the replacement roof. Thus, unlike the 

FMVSS No. 216 definition, the FMVSS 

No. 214 definition does not exclude 

from the definition replacement roofs on 

vehicles whose original roof has been 

replaced by a roof that consists of 

glazing materials. This final rule also 

excludes on practicability grounds 

vehicles that have had their original roof 

rails removed and not replaced, i.e., as 

in the conversion of a hardtop vehicle 

to a convertible. Entities involved in 

such conversions are usually small 

businesses. The FMVSS No. 214 

definition is changed to ‘‘modified roof’’

to distinguish it from the FMVSS No. 

216 definition of altered roof. 

viii. 6-Way Seats 

NMEDA stated that mobility industry 

companies commonly replace front row 

seats with extended travel seat bases 

(‘‘6-way seats’’) to facilitate vehicle 

access. It believed that because the 

modified seat bases are generally less 

stable than the original seats, the pole 

test would result in higher HIC values 

in vehicles with extended movement 

seating systems than in vehicles with 

OEM seat bases. NMEDA thus 

recommended that we exclude vehicles 

with extended travel seating systems 

installed as a part of a second-stage 

manufacturing process or by a vehicle 

alterer. 

Agency response: We have decided 

that vehicles with extended travel seat 

bases and other seating systems 

designed to facilitate vehicle access are 

not excluded from this final rule. 

NMEDA provided no data to support its 

assertion that a modified seat base 

would necessarily cause extended 

movement and higher HIC values in the 

required tests. Further, no explanation 

was provided as to why these seat bases 

cannot be built structurally comparable 

to the original seat. We do not believe 

that providing additional 

reinforcements to secure the seat is an 

insurmountable engineering task. If 

higher HIC values are occurring, that 

supports our belief that better designs 

are needed for occupants of these 

vehicles. 

ix. Multistage Manufacturers 

NTEA suggested that the final rule 

exclude ‘‘vehicles built in two or more 

stages that are equipped with a cargo 

carrying, load bearing or workperforming body or equipment.’’ The 

commenter stated that its members 

typically certify that their vehicles meet 

dynamic testing standards by ‘‘using socalled ‘pass-through’ compliance.’’

NTEA is concerned that chassis 

manufacturers ‘‘may state that 

subsequent stage manufacturers are 

unable to do anything in the vicinity of’’

side curtain air bags or head bags. 

The commenter also believed that 

there are no viable alternatives available 

to its members to demonstrate 

compliance other than by using passthrough compliance. NTEA stated that 

its members cannot certify vehicles 

based on engineering analyses because 

its members do not have the necessary 

level of experience with a new 

requirement of this nature, or previous 

crash test data, which NTEA believed 

are needed for an engineering analyses. 

NTEA stated that computer modeling is 

unavailable because the commenter 

believed it would be very expensive and 

not widely available to its members. The 

commenter stated that consortium 

dynamic testing is unavailable because 

the FMVSS No. 214 tests ‘‘are vehicle 

specific, [so] even minor trim 

differences in a single model could 

produce significantly different test 

results, let alone varying chassis and 

body combinations.’’ With regard to 

actual crash testing, NTEA stated: ‘‘It 

would be a practical impossibility for 

these companies to test each of these 

configurations to sell the one or two of 

each configuration that have been 

ordered by a customer.’’

Agency response: NHTSA declines 

NTEA’s request to exclude from the pole 

test vehicles built in two or more stages 

that are equipped with a cargo carrying, 

load bearing or work-performing body 

or equipment. We do not believe that 

there is a need for a blanket exclusion 

of these vehicles. NTEA was concerned 

that incomplete vehicle manufacturers 

‘‘may state that subsequent stage 

manufacturers are unable to do anything 

in the vicinity of’’ side curtain air bags 

or head bags. We believe that 

incomplete vehicle manufacturers will 

accommodate the needs of final-stage 

manufacturers to produce the vehicles. 

Chassis-cabs, a type of incomplete 

vehicle often acquired by final-stage 

manufacturers for manufacturing 

vehicles, have a significant portion of 

the occupant compartment completed. 

Chassis-cab manufacturers will likely 

produce incomplete vehicles with seator roof-mounted head/thorax air bag 

systems already installed. As long as the 

final-stage manufacturer meets the 

conditions of the incomplete vehicle 

document (and NTEA has not shown 

that final stage manufacturers will not 

be able to meet those conditions) the 

manufacturers may rely on the 

incomplete vehicle manufacturer’s 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51938 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

71The February 14, 2005 final rule amended the 

certification requirements of 49 CFR part 567 to 

allow the use of pass-through certification so that 

it can be used not only for multistage vehicles based 

on chassis-cabs, but also for those based on other 

types of incomplete vehicles. Id. 72See Docket No. NHTSA–2004–17694–43. 

certification and pass it through when 

certifying the completed vehicle.71

To the degree that final stage 

manufacturers must certify the 

compliance of their vehicles other than 

by using ‘‘pass-through’’ certification, 

we have provided these manufacturers 

until September 1, 2014 to work with 

manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, 

seating systems and SIABs to develop 

systems that will enable them to certify 

to FMVSS No. 214’s pole test. They can 

obtain seat-mounted SIABs and work 

with the suppliers, individually or as a 

consortium, to develop the information 

to install the seat-mounted systems in 

their vehicles. Because a wholesale 

exclusion of vehicles built in two or 

more stages that are equipped with a 

cargo carrying, load bearing or workperforming body or equipment has not 

been justified, we are not adopting an 

across-the-board exclusion of these 

vehicles. 

x. Other Issues 

The NPRM proposed excluding tow 

trucks and dump trucks from the pole 

test. NTEA commented that it was not 

aware of any dump trucks or tow trucks 

with GVWRs of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or 

less, so the vehicles would be excluded 

from the pole test based on the GVWR 

of the vehicles. Considering this 

information, the express exclusion is 

unnecessary, and we have removed it 

from the regulatory text. (For that 

reason, we have also removed the 

express exclusion from the section 

excluding vehicles from the MDB test 

requirements.) 

11. Practicability 

The Alliance believed that the agency 

did not demonstrate that attaining the 

IARVs would be practicable. The 

commenter stated, ‘‘Based on the 

information provided to support the 

NPRM, the agency has not identified 

one single vehicle that has met all of the 

proposed injury criteria in all of the 

proposed tests. Indeed, no one single 

vehicle has been subject to the entire 

suite of proposed crash tests. Therefore, 

the practicability of the proposed rule 

has not been demonstrated.’’

NHTSA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view. In our test program, 

the Subaru Forester and the Honda CRV 

met the performance criteria for the 

SID–IIs dummy. The Honda Accord and 

VW Jetta almost met all the IARVs when 

tested with the SID–IIs dummy. The 

Accord and Jetta had relatively low 

values for HIC and lower spine 

acceleration, and did not meet only the 

pelvic force criterion. The Honda 

Accord, VW Jetta, VW Beetle 

convertible, and Saab 9–3 convertible 

met the performance criteria for the ES–

2re. 

It is not surprising that the vehicles 

we tested did not meet the IARVs for 

both the SID–IIs and the ES–2re, 

because the oblique pole test was 

developed to induce improvements that 

would protect more occupants in more 

crash situations than current vehicles. 

NHTSA need not demonstrate that any 

current vehicle meets all the new 

requirements to show that an FMVSS 

will be practicable within the meaning 

of the Safety Act when fully 

implemented. A determination of 

practicability calls for an exercise in 

judgment by the agency, based on 

information about the performance of 

current designs and the likely effect of 

design improvements and new 

technologies on performance. 

The fact that no current designs met 

the requirements when tested with both 

the SID–IIs and the ES–2re does not 

show the requirements will not be 

practicable, but it does require the 

agency to use its judgment carefully to 

ensure that the new requirements will 

be practicable within the lead time 

provided. In this case, we have ensured 

that the provided lead time and phasein schedule assures that manufacturers 

can make long range plans for improved 

sensor designs, SIABs and arm rests to 

meet the IARVs for both test dummies. 

The test results from our 2005 test 

program show that some SIABs 

performed well with the SID–IIs, while 

others performed well with the ES–2re. 

We believe that current SIAB systems 

can be redesigned and implemented to 

provide occupant protection to the 

populations represented by both the 

SID–IIs and the ES–2re test dummies. 

For example, some window curtains 

adequately protect the head of the midsize male dummy but may need to be 

widened and lengthened to ensure that 

the head of the SID–IIs is cushioned at 

the forward edge of the curtain. Some 

vehicles may need to use a seatmounted SIAB (existing technology), in 

addition to a curtain, to meet the 

thoracic, abdominal and/or pelvic injury 

criteria for both dummies. We believe 

that vehicle manufacturers are capable 

of making these and other 

improvements to SIAB systems. 

Manufacturers have made steady and 

notable progress in developing, 

improving and implementing SIABs. To 

illustrate, in 1998, only 0.04% of 

passenger cars sold in the U.S. had head 

side air bag systems. In 2002, 22% of 

passenger cars were so equipped, and by 

2009, under the voluntary commitment, 

manufacturers have projected that 100% 

of passenger vehicles will have head 

side air bag systems. Based on the vast 

knowledge that manufacturers have 

been able to gain in developing and 

implementing side air bag technologies, 

we are confident that manufacturers 

will be able to make the improvements 

to current systems that will enable the 

systems to meet the upgraded FMVSS 

No. 214 requirements adopted today. 

12. International Harmonization 

The Australian government was 

concerned that NHTSA’s side impact 

proposal would forestall the outcome of 

deliberations of the International 

Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA) 

Side Impact Working Group (SIWG) 

regarding a side impact pole test 

procedure, and the dummies used in the 

test.72 Our decisions today should not 

hamper the potential for global 

harmonization of side impact 

regulations. 

Today’s final rule is consistent with 

NHTSA’s policy goal of harmonizing 

with non-U.S. safety requirements 

except to the extent needed to address 

safety problems here in the U.S. We 

noted in the NPRM that, worldwide, 

there are numerous countries that have 

side impact protection requirements or 

governmental or non-governmental side 

impact consumer information programs. 

While these side impact programs are 

similar to those of the U.S., the safety 

need addressed by those programs is 

different from the side impact safety 

need in the U.S., due in large part to 

fleet differences. NHTSA’s underlying 

impetus to require side impact head 

protection is purely driven by the 

hundreds of lives that could be saved 

each year on U.S. roadways. 

c. Aspects of the MDB Test Procedure 

A number of commenters responded 

to the NPRM’s proposed changes to the 

dynamic MDB side impact test in 

FMVSS No. 214. The NPRM did not 

propose changes to the MDB itself. 

1. The Moving Deformable Barrier 

IIHS, Advocates, CU and Public 

Citizen believed that the agency should 

change the design of the moving 

deformable barrier (MDB) used in the 

dynamic test to better reflect side 

impact risks in the current vehicle fleet. 

Advocates, CU and Public Citizen 

believed that an upgraded MDB should 

be used to test all vehicles up to 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb). Advocates further stated: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51939 

‘‘If NHTSA does not extend the 

proposed oblique pole test to rear 

seating areas in passenger vehicles, only 

a MDB-based test that actually results in 

head injury’is worthwhile in connection 

with adding a head injury measure and 

criterion to the current Standard No. 

214 dynamic test.’’ IIHS stated: ‘‘If the 

agency does not take this opportunity to 

improve the barrier and if it decides to 

accept less biofidelic dummy options, it 

is difficult to see what benefits will 

accrue from the additional MDB tests 

that have been proposed.’’

Agency response: NHTSA considers a 

redesign of the MDB as a longer term 

project beyond the scope of the present 

rulemaking. As noted in the NPRM (69 

FR at 27992), initiatives to improve 

vehicle compatibility between passenger 

cars and LTVs in side crashes are likely 

to change the characteristics of striking 

vehicles in the future. Further, the 

marketplace is currently fluctuating. 

When future changes to the fleet have 

been identified, we can then determine 

how the agency’s existing MDB should 

be modified to represent striking 

vehicles. 

In response to Advocates, we do not 

agree that the absence of a pole test 

requirement for rear seat occupants 

necessitates the inclusion of a new MDB 

test that results in head injury. The SID–

IIs in the rear seat of several of the 

vehicles in our test program measured 

high pelvic loading in FMVSS No. 214 

MDB tests. Use of the dummy in the 

MDB tests and the information it 

provides about rear seat performance 

will result in improvements to rear seat 

occupant protection. Contrary to IIHS, 

we believe that the use of the ES–2re 

and SID–IIs dummies will add value to 

the current upgrade until such a time 

when a more thorough evaluation of the 

vehicle fleet and its characteristics can 

be modeled. 

2. A Reasonable Balancing of the Test 

Burden 

A. Arm Position 

The NPRM proposed that the driver 

dummy arm position must be 40 degrees 

relative to torso, and that the arm for all 

dummies other than the driver dummy 

would have the arm in line with the 

torso. The Alliance commented that, to 

reduce test burdens and test variability, 

the arm position for the dummies 

should be set in the detent representing 

a 40 degree angle between the torso and 

the arm for all seating positions 

specified in the MDB test. 

To reduce test burdens and 

variability, the agency agrees with the 

Alliance’s recommendation to set the 

arm position for the dummy in the 

driver and front passenger seating 

positions in the detent representing a 40 

degree angle between the torso and the 

arm. Under this change, the front seat 

dummies’ arms will be angled in the 

same manner on both the right and left 

sides of the vehicle (i.e., the front seat 

dummy’s arm nearest the door will be 

raised). This helps to reduce the test 

burden of the MDB test without 

decreasing crash protection, since it 

should be easier for manufacturers to 

design and better assure that a vehicle 

will meet the MDB requirements when 

impacted on either the right or left sides 

of the vehicle using data from an MDB 

test of only one side of the vehicle. 

Based upon pendulum impact tests to 

the dummy’s thorax in which the arm 

was positioned down and another with 

a dummy without an arm, the maximum 

rib deflection occurred when the thorax 

was fully exposed. We believe that 

raising the arm of the dummy in the 

passenger seat test exposes the dummy’s 

thorax in the same way achieved by a 

dummy without an arm, and that this 

change to the procedure will thus not 

degrade the robustness of the test. 

B. Reducing the Number of Tests 

To reduce unnecessary test burdens, 

today’s final rule specifies that the MDB 

test will be conducted with an ES–2re 

in the front seat and a SID–IIs in the rear 

seat. We will not test using a SID–IIs 

dummy in the front seat, for the reasons 

provided earlier in this preamble in the 

section titled, ‘‘Need for the 5th 

percentile dummy in the MDB test.’’ In 

contrast, the ES–2re in the front seat 

will enhance safety at that seating 

position because of the dummy’s 

enhanced abilities to measure HIC, 

thoracic and abdominal rib deflections, 

and pelvic loads. (The current FMVSS 

No. 214 side impact dummy (SID) does 

not measure HIC, rib deflections or have 

any type mechanism that assesses the 

risk of abdominal injury.) 

However, we will not use an ES–2re 

in the rear seat. In our side impact test 

program, the ES–2re’s responses in the 

rear seat passed the injury assessment 

reference values and were generally 

low. Further, while the ES–2re dummy 

has rib and abdominal measurement 

capabilities, the dummy was not able to 

detect the elevated injury measures 

found by the SID–IIs dummy in the rear 

seat MDB tests. Out of the nine tests 

conducted with the ES–2re rear 

passenger dummy, only one vehicle had 

an elevated abdominal force 

measurement in these tests, as reported 

in the NPRM (69 FR at 28010). The test 

was of the 2002 Chevrolet Impala, 

which has since been redesigned. The 

2002 Impala test also resulted in high 

pelvic force and lower spine 

measurements when tested with the 

SID–IIs due to an intruding armrest. 

Because this final rule incorporates the 

SID–IIs dummy in the MDB rear seat 

test, countermeasures that will be 

installed to reduce the pelvic force and 

lower spine acceleration values of the 

SID–IIs in the rear seat should also 

address the performance of the rear seat 

in protecting mid-size adults. Use of the 

ES–2re in the rear seat of the MDB test 

would not result in an enhancement of 

occupant protection. 

We do not believe that testing with 

only the SID–IIs dummy in the rear will 

degrade rear seat occupant protection to 

mid-size adult occupants. Our side 

NCAP program presently uses a midsized adult male dummy (the SID–H3) 

in the rear seating position in the MDB 

NCAP test, which complements the 

FMVSS No. 214 MDB test. We will 

make sure that any future revisions to 

the NCAP program will continue to 

complement the standard as upgraded 

today. 

3. Other 

NMEDA suggested that: ‘‘Mobility 

vehicles having raised/altered roofs, 

lowered floors and vehicles equipped 

with extended travel seating systems be 

required to meet only the MDB test with 

the new mid-size male, and therefore be 

exempt from the MDB requirements for 

the small female test dummy, until such 

time as the NHTSA can determine if, in 

fact, the small female is the most 

accurate representation of the stature of 

mobility vehicle occupants.’’

Agency response: We do not support 

this suggestion. We are not persuaded 

by NMEDA’s theory that mobility 

vehicle occupants could be statistically 

larger than the rest of the population of 

motor vehicle occupants such that 

testing with the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy would not be beneficial. 

The SID–IIs 5th percentile adult female 

dummy represents a population that 

generally has lower impact tolerance 

levels than the 50th percentile adult 

male represented by the ES–2re. As 

explained in the next section of this 

preamble, our injury criteria for the 

SID–IIs was developed taking into 

account the occupant’s age, bone mass 

and size. The injury tolerance levels for 

the SID–IIs were normalized to that for 

a 56-year-old, rather than that for a 45- 

year-old as done for the ES–2re. We 

have no basis for assuming that the SID–

IIs will not be an appropriate test device 

for testing the rear seat of vehicles 

manufactured for mobility impaired 

occupants, and in fact have good reason 

to think that it will be. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

73NHTSA decided not to use the chest viscous 

injury criteria, V*C ≤ 1.0, because we did not find 

the V*C criterion to be repeatable and reproducible 

in our research. 

74The agency did not propose a limit on 

deflections because, in pendulum tests, the FRG 

design reduced the SID–IIs’s dummy’s deflection 

measurement capability when the ribs were struck 

in angled pendulum impacts. NHTSA wanted to 

obtain more information about the FRG’s effect on 

rib deflections before proposing deflection criteria 

in FMVSS No. 214. 

75TTI(d), a chest acceleration-based criteria, 

when combined with anthropometric data, was 

developed by NHTSA (Eppinger, R. H., Marcus, 

J. H., Morgan, R. M., (1984), ‘‘Development of 

Dummy and Injury Index for NHTSA’s Thoracic 

Side Impact Protection Research Program,’’ SAE 

Paper No. 840885, Government/Industry Meeting 

and Exposition, Washington, D.C.; Morgan, R. M., 

Marcus, J. H., Eppinger, R. H., (1986), ‘‘Side 

Impact—The Biofidelity of NHTSA’s Proposed ATD 

and Efficacy of TTI,’’ SAE Paper No. 861877, 30th 

Stapp Car Crash Conference) and is included in the 

FMVSS No. 214 side impact protection standard. 

76 Kuppa, S., Eppinger, R., McKoy, F., Nguyen, T., 

Pintar, F., Yoganandan, Y., ‘‘Development of Side 

Impact Thoracic Injury Criteria and their 

Application to the Modified ES–2 Dummy with Rib 

Extensions (ES–2re),’’ Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 

47, October, 2003. 

77Logistic regression analysis using cadaver 

injury and anthropometry information along with 

the ES–2 measurements indicate that the age of the 

subject at the time of death had a significant 

influence on the injury outcome (p<0.05). Id. 

As previously discussed, the agency 

has reduced the MDB requirements to 

only include the ES–2re dummy in the 

front seating position and the SID–IIs 

dummy in the rear. This reduces the test 

burden for vehicle manufacturers and 

should address NMEDA’s concerns 

about the driver seating position. 

d. Injury Criteria 

In determining the suitability of a 

dummy for side impact testing, the 

agency considers the dummy’s injury 

assessment capabilities relative to 

human body regions at risk in the real 

world crash environment. Crash data 

indicate that head, chest, abdomen and 

pelvic injuries are prevalent in side 

impacts. Accordingly, injury criteria 

were proposed for the ES–2re’s head, 

thorax, abdomen, and pelvis. 

The types of injury criteria proposed 

by NHTSA for the ES–2re were 

generally consistent with those 

developed by ECE/WP.29, by the 

European Union in its directive EU 96/ 

27/EC, and by EuroNCAP for rating 

vehicles. Four of NHTSA’s proposed 

injury criteria were specified in EU 96/ 

27/EC for use with the EuroSID–1 

dummy.73 For the SID–IIs, injury 

criteria were proposed for the head, 

lower spine, and pelvis. The NPRM did 

not propose thoracic or abdominal 

deflection limits using the SID–

IIsFRG.74

A technical report titled, ‘‘Injury 

Criteria for Side Impact Dummies,’’

May, 2004 (NHTSA docket number 

17694) was made available to the public 

at http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/ 

pdf89/285284_web.pdf. The report was 

peer reviewed in accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) June 15, 2005 information 

quality guidelines. Three peer reviewers 

from academia and industry, considered 

experts in the field of impact 

biomechanics and side impact, 

reviewed the document. The reviewers’

comments and the agency’s response 

thereto are available to the public 

through the DOT peer review website 

http://www.dot.gov/peerrt.htm. 

1. Head Injury Criterion 

NHTSA proposed to require a head 

injury criterion (HIC) limit of 1000 

(measured in a 36 millisecond time 

interval). HIC36 1000 relates to a 50 

percent risk of head injury. The HIC36

1000 criterion is used throughout the 

FMVSSs and provides a measure with 

which the agency and the industry have 

substantial experience. The HIC36 1000 

criterion is used in the optional pole test 

of FMVSS No. 201. 

Comments on HIC proposal: The 

Alliance, Nissan, Ferrari, Maserati, and 

DaimlerChrysler supported the 

proposed HIC36 criterion of 1000. 

Advocates and Public Citizen supported 

a HIC36 criterion of 800, believing that 

the criterion would reduce the risk of 

AIS 3+ injury to approximately 35 

percent, and that the limit is achievable 

by current vehicles. Dr. Albert King, a 

private individual, submitted a paper he 

co-authored that hypothesized that 

brain injury is governed by brain 

response and not the input acceleration. 

He suggested that the brain response to 

input translation and rotational head 

acceleration can be obtained through 

finite element models and injury 

potential estimated using strain and 

strain rates in the brain tissue. 

Agency response: This final rule 

adopts the HIC36 criterion of 1000. The 

HIC36 limit of 1000 was selected to 

accord with the FMVSS No. 201 head 

protection standard. Vehicle 

manufacturers have experience with the 

1000 HIC limit. 

Significant research is needed before 

the potential for estimating brain injury 

risk using finite element brain models 

can be assessed. NHTSA did not 

propose to use a finite element brain 

model for head injury assessment and 

this final rule does not adopt such a 

method. 

2. Thorax (Chest) Criteria 

A. ES–2re 

NHTSA proposed two criteria to 

measure thoracic injury when using the 

ES–2re: Chest deflection and resultant 

lower spine acceleration. Chest 

deflection has been shown to be the best 

predictor of thoracic injuries for side 

impact. The agency believed it to be a 

better injury risk measure than TTI(d) 

for the ES–2re dummy.75 We added 

spinal acceleration criteria because we 

believed that spinal accelerations might 

detect severe loading conditions that are 

undetected by the unidirectional 

deflection measurements. Lower spine 

acceleration may not have a causal 

relationship with thoracic injury but is 

a good indicator of the overall loading 

to the thorax. The agency believed that 

in concert, the two thoracic criteria 

would enhance injury assessment in a 

vehicle side crash test, and result in 

reduced chest injuries as compared to 

the use of TTI(d) in current FMVSS No. 

214. 

NHTSA selected the two criteria 

based upon a series of 42 side impact 

sled tests using fully instrumented post 

mortem human subjects (PMHS) and 16 

sled tests using the ES–2re, conducted 

at the Medical College of Wisconsin 

(MCW). NHTSA conducted the analysis 

using logistic regression with injury 

outcome in the PMHS sled tests as the 

response, and ES–2re dummy measured 

physical parameters (maximum rib 

deflections, TTI, maximum spinal 

accelerations) in similar sled tests as the 

covariates. The subjects’ anthropometric 

data such as age, gender, and mass were 

also included as covariates since the 

agency believed that they might 

influence injury outcome.76 This 

method of analysis provided injury 

criteria that could directly be applied to 

the ES–2re dummy. 

i. Chest Deflection 

Chest deflection was proposed to be 

not greater than 42 mm for any rib 

(reflecting an approximate 50 percent 

risk of an AIS 3+ injury). The NPRM 

sought comment on an alternative 

criterion within the range of 35 to 44 

mm (1.38 to 1.73 in). The 44 mm (1.73 

in) value corresponded to a 50 percent 

risk of serious injury for a 45-year-old 

occupant.77 The agency determined 

upon reanalyzing a data set that was 

used when NHTSA undertook the 1990 

rulemaking adopting the MDB test into 

FMVSS No. 214 that the current TTI(d) 

of 85 g’s corresponds approximately to 

a 50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. Thus, 

NHTSA tentatively concluded that a rib 

deflection limit of 44 mm (1.73 in) for 

the ES–2re could be acceptable on the 

basis that it was approximately 

equivalent to the risk of injury 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51941 

78NHTSA reanalyzed the Eppinger data set that 

was used in the 1990 MDB rulemaking. Kuppa et 

al., ‘‘Development of Side Impact Thoracic Injury 

Criteria and their Application to the Modified ES–

2 Dummy with Rib Extensions (ES–2re),’’ id. 

79Samaha, R., Maltese, M., Bolte, J., (2001), 

‘‘Evaluation of the ES–2 Dummy in Representative 

Side Impacts,’’ Seventeenth International Technical 

Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 

Paper No. 486, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Washington, DC. 

80 In its comment, Honda noted that the NPRM 

May 17, 2004 specified that acceleration data from 

Continued 

addressed by the current TTI(d) 

requirement in FMVSS No. 214.78

Comments on the ES–2re chest 

deflection: In an August 16, 2005 

comment, the Alliance noted that the 

injury risk curve from which NHTSA 

derived its proposed chest deflection 

limit of 44 mm was based on the MCW 

studies that analyzed the responses of 

PMHS and the ES–2re. The Alliance 

believed that an injury risk curve 

developed for the ES–2 dummy should 

be used instead, particularly if the 

agency agrees with the Alliance’s 

suggestion to use the ES–2 dummy. 

Moreover, the commenter stated, 

NHTSA proposed a chest deflection 

requirement of 42 mm to harmonize 

with the EU regulation for the EuroSID–

1. The Alliance stated that the ES–2 

dummy rib deflections have been 

observed to be approximately 25 to 100 

percent larger than those for the 

EuroSID–1 under the same test 

conditions. The commenter stated: 

Given the difference in deflections noted 

between the EuroSID–1 and ES–2 dummies, 

the Alliance believes that the injury limit for 

thoracic deflection in the ES–2 should be at 

least 25% greater than the limit derived from 

the risk curve if the EuroSID–1 is used. 

Therefore, the value of 42 mm in the 

European regulation derived with EuroSID–

1 would be multiplied by 1.25, which leads 

to a value of 53 mm for the deflection limit 

proposed by the Alliance. 

Advocates and Public Citizen 

believed that even the 35 mm deflection 

limit at the low end of the proposed 

range was too high to protect the elderly 

population. Advocates believed that the 

proposal ‘‘will disproportionately take 

the lives of, and inflict much more 

serious injuries on, occupants 65 years 

of age and older’’ and stated that it did 

not support any value within the range 

proposed. 

Agency response: This final rule 

adopts a chest deflection threshold of 44 

mm, which corresponds to a 50 percent 

risk of AIS 3+ injury for a 45-year-old. 

We do not agree with the Alliance’s 

suggestion that, because the ES–2 

dummy records higher rib defections 

than the EuroSID–1, the chest deflection 

limit for this final rule should be 53 

mm. 

Many researchers have shown that the 

ES–2 dummy records higher rib 

deflections than the EuroSID–1. Samaha 

et al. reported higher rib deflections 

with the ES–2 dummy than with the 

EuroSID–1 dummy in identical side 

impact vehicle crash tests conducted in 

accordance with the EU 96/EC/27 side 

impact procedure.79 When developing 

the NPRM, we determined that the 

thorax of the ES–2 was so different from 

that of the predecessor EuroSID–1 

dummy that previously-generated 

EuroSID–1 data should not be used in 

analyzing the ES–2 and its associated 

thoracic injury criteria. Consequently, 

NHTSA stated in the NPRM that, in 

developing the injury criteria for the 

ES–2re, we would use risk curves and 

other information resulting from our 

research conducted with the ES–2re. (69 

FR at 28002) 

That research included paired sled 

tests at the Medical College of 

Wisconsin with PMHS and the ES–2re 

dummy in various impact wall 

configurations. ‘‘Injury Criteria for Side 

Impact Dummies,’’ supra. The analysis 

of the test data indicated a 50 percent 

risk of thoracic injury at 44 mm of 

maximum thoracic rib deflection. We 

viewed favorably that a rib deflection 

limit of approximately 44 mm for the 

ES–2re would be harmonized with the 

42 mm limit in the EU regulation, in 

that the IARV of 42 mm in the EU 

regulation corresponded to a 50 percent 

risk of nine rib fractures, which was 

associated with serious injury (internal 

organ injuries and flail chest). (69 FR at 

28002, footnote 33.) That is, the chest 

deflection limits of the two regulations 

generally correspond to equivalent 

limits on the risk of serious chest injury, 

which could promote the development 

of similar countermeasures. 

With regard to the comment from 

Advocates and Public Citizen, the 

agency acknowledges that the elderly 

and small size occupants generally have 

lower impact tolerance levels than 

younger, larger occupants. For this 

reason, the injury tolerance levels for 

the 5th percentile female were 

normalized to that for a 56-year-old, 

rather than that for a 45-year-old as 

done for the 50th percentile male 

dummy. These injury tolerance levels 

are reasonable, balancing to the extent 

possible the dual goals of practicability 

and optimum safety performance. The 

agency thus believes that a final rule 

that uses both the 5th percentile adult 

female dummy and the 50th percentile 

male dummy affords practicable 

protection to the elderly as well as to a 

more generalized population. 

ii. ES–2re Lower Spine Acceleration 

Resultant lower spine acceleration 

was proposed to be not greater than 82 

g (reflecting a 50 percent risk of an AIS 

3+ injury). The upper and lower spine 

of the ES–2re is instrumented with triaxial accelerometers (x, y, and z 

direction corresponding to anteriorposterior, lateral medial, and inferiorsuperior). In both oblique pole and MDB 

side vehicle crashes, loading can be in 

various directions due to the 

complexities of the intruding surfaces. 

Therefore, NHTSA believed that to 

account for overall loading, resultant 

accelerations should be measured. 

Comments on ES–2re lower spine 

acceleration: The Alliance did not agree 

with the use of the lower spine 

acceleration as a supplementary 

criterion for thoracic injury criterion. 

The Alliance believed that the criterion 

is a poor predictor of injury outcome. 

The Alliance stated that ‘‘thoracic 

deflection is a direct measure of injury 

potential by itself and that the addition 

of acceleration will only unnecessarily 

restrict designs using an unproven and 

poorly correlated parameter.’’ Further, 

the Alliance suggested that the lower 

spine acceleration criterion might be 

unnecessary for the ES–2re, in that the 

dummy’s rib deflection readings alone 

should detect injurious loading of the 

thorax. 

Agency response: We have 

determined that it is unnecessary to 

limit lower spine acceleration in the 

pole and MDB tests of the ES–2re 

dummy. Accordingly, this final rule 

does not adopt the lower spine 

acceleration limit in this rulemaking for 

the ES–2re. In the oblique pole tests 

conducted in our 214 fleet testing 

program, the ES–2re’s lower spine 

acceleration readings were relatively 

consistent with the dummy’s rib 

deflection readings. Eleven tests showed 

elevated rib deflections. Of these eleven, 

five also had elevated lower spine 

acceleration. The lower spine 

acceleration of the ES–2re was elevated 

(75 g) in one vehicle (the Ford 

Expedition) when the dummy’s rib 

deflection was low (26 mm), but the 

lower spine response could have been 

elevated due to high abdominal loads 

(the ES–2 recorded a 6,973 N abdominal 

force in that test). Because the lower 

spine acceleration measurements fairly 

tracked the ES–2re’s rib deflections, we 

conclude that, in the oblique pole and 

MDB tests, the lower spine acceleration 

criterion is unnecessary for the ES–2re. 80 The dummy’s rib deflection 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the accelerometers on the ES–2re lower spine 

would be filtered at channel frequency class of 1000 

Hz (proposed S11.5(b)(3), 69 FR at 28027). Honda 

believed that SAE filter channel class 180 should 

be used instead, and pointed out that NHTSA used 

SAE filter channel class 180 in developing the 

injury criteria for the side impact dummies. The 

commenter is correct that S11.5(b)(3) of the NPRM 

should have specified SAE filter class 180. 

NHTSA’s intent to adopt SAE filter class 180 is 

shown by the document referenced by Honda, and 

by the December 14, 2006 final rule adopting the 

ES–2re dummy into 49 CFR part 572, which 

specifies SAE filter class 180 in 572.189(4). 

However, because we are not adopting the lower 

spine acceleration injury assessment limit, the 

specification for the lower spine filter class is not 

necessary and we have removed the filter class 

specification from FMVSS No. 214. In addition, this 

final rule specifies that the dummy’s rib deflection 

data are filtered at channel frequency class 600 Hz, 

not 180 Hz, in accordance with SAE Recommended 

Practice J211, ‘‘Instrumentation For Impact Test, 

Part 1, Electronic Instrumentation.’’

81The Alliance stated that it supported use of the 

SID–IIs dummy for research purposes. 

measurements alone will detect 

injurious loading of the thorax. 

Although we are not adopting the 

lower spine acceleration limit as 

suggested by the Alliance, we do not 

agree with the Alliance’s suggestion that 

the addition of acceleration will 

unnecessarily restrict designs. The 

Alliance submitted no data or any other 

information explaining or substantiating 

this comment. Further, we have not 

seen inconsistencies between the rib 

deflection and lower spine acceleration 

criteria that support that contention. 

B. SID–IIs Lower Spine Acceleration 

For the SID–IIs dummy, the agency 

proposed a limit of 82 g on the resultant 

lower spine acceleration, which is a 

measure of loading severity to the 

thorax. In vehicle crashes, loading can 

be in various directions. Therefore, 

NHTSA believed that to account for 

overall loading, resultant accelerations 

should be considered rather than lateral 

acceleration alone. The agency 

recognized that dummy-measured 

accelerations for the level of loading 

severities experienced in vehicle 

crashes might not have a causal 

relationship to injury outcome. 

However, the agency believed that they 

are good indicators of thoracic injury in 

cadaver testing and of overall loading to 

the dummy thorax. 

NHTSA selected the 82 g resultant 

lower spine acceleration based upon a 

Receiver Operator Characteristic curve 

(ROC) developed using the data from 

the series of MCW PMHS sled tests and 

the sled tests conducted with the SID–

IIs dummy under impact conditions 

identical to those of the MCW tests. 

NHTSA estimated the thoracic criteria 

that were associated with a 50th percent 

risk of AIS 3+ injury in the PMHS. As 

noted above, accelerations measured in 

a pole and MDB crash test soundly 

indicate overall loading to the dummy 

thorax, which, in turn, can be used to 

indicate when the thorax has been 

exposed to overload conditions in a 

crash. However, to minimize instances 

where accelerations above the threshold 

value results in no serious injury, the 

agency set the maximum lower spine 

acceleration at 82 g. (See ‘‘Injury Criteria 

for Side Impact Dummies,’’ id.) The 

agency also believed that the age of the 

subject involved in a side impact affects 

injury outcome. Subject age in the MCW 

sled test data was found to have 

significant influence on injury outcome 

and so was included in the injury 

models. (NHTSA normalized the risk 

curve to the average occupant age of 56 

years.) 

Comments on SID–IIs lower spine 

acceleration: The Alliance disagreed 

with the proposal to use a deflectionbased criterion for the ES–2re and an 

acceleration-based criterion for the 

small female dummy.81 The Alliance 

believed that limiting accelerations 

would not assure that thoracic injury 

will not occur, and that chest deflection 

is the best predictor of injury. The 

Alliance stated: ‘‘It is possible to have 

balanced restraint loads, as indicated by 

low thoracic spine accelerations, but to 

have large, injurious rib deflections. 

Limits must be placed on thoracic and 

abdominal rib deflections to assure that 

the risks of thoracic and abdominal 

injuries are at acceptable levels for the 

simulated accident condition.’’

IIHS likewise strongly supported the 

use of deflection measures. 

Advocates took ‘‘no specific position’’

on the proposed limit of 82 g but 

believed that the value might be 

excessive with regard to older vehicle 

occupants. The commenter agreed with 

the NPRM that resultant accelerations 

should be considered rather than lateral 

acceleration alone. 

Agency response: NHTSA agrees with 

the Alliance and IIHS that the SID–IIs 

thoracic and abdominal rib deflections 

are a critical part of the dummy. 

However, adopting limits on the rib 

deflections of the SID–IIs would be 

outside the scope of this rulemaking and 

thus is not a part of this final rule. 

Nonetheless, as stated earlier in this 

preamble, we may undertake future 

rulemaking to propose to limit the 

thoracic and abdominal rib deflections 

measured by the SID–IIs in the FMVSS 

No. 214 MDB and pole tests. 

Since we are not adopting in this final 

rule thoracic and abdominal deflections 

for the SID–IIs, a criterion for lower 

spine acceleration is especially 

important. The criterion can detect 

injurious loading conditions to the 

abdomen and lower thorax. Test data 

from the agency’s 214 fleet testing 

program indicate that 6 of the 10 vehicle 

tests with the SID–IIs resulted in rib 

deflection measurements exceeding a 

limit of 38 mm for the thoracic rib 

(which corresponds to a 50 percent risk 

of AIS 3+ injury), and/or a limit of 45 

mm for the abdominal rib (the 45 mm 

limit is used by IIHS in its consumer 

information program). In all of these, the 

lower spine acceleration values were 

also elevated (exceeding 82 g or within 

80 percent of 82 g (i.e., 66 g)). The 6 

tests were of the: 2005 Toyota Corolla, 

2005 Saturn Ion, 2005 Ford Five 

Hundred, 2004/05 Toyota Sienna, 2005 

Chevy Colorado 4x2 extended cab, and 

the 2005 Ford Expedition. Likewise, the 

lower spine acceleration criterion 

identified elevated loading conditions 

in the test of the 2005 Honda CRV. In 

that test, the SID–IIs abdominal rib 

deflection was 36 mm (within 80 

percent of 45 mm), and the lower spine 

was 68 g (within 80 percent of 82 g). 

Thus, the data show that the lower 

spine acceleration readings were 

generally consistent with the SID–IIs’s 

rib deflections. The criterion was 

generally able to identify tests in which 

a vehicle was unable to keep rib 

deflections from exceeding threshold 

levels. The lower spine acceleration 

criterion meets the need for a good 

indicator of thoracic injury and of 

overall loading to the dummy thorax. 

The lower spine acceleration is 

particularly needed in the absence of a 

rib deflection criterion for the SID–IIs, 

or any other mechanism that will ensure 

that vehicles are best designed with 

abdominal and thoracic protection for 

the small occupant in mind. In the 

future, if NHTSA were to adopt limits 

on the thoracic and abdominal rib 

deflections measured by the SID–IIs in 

the FMVSS No. 214 crash tests, the 

agency would consider as part of that 

rulemaking the need for limiting both 

lower spine acceleration and rib 

deflections. 

Resultant accelerations will be 

measured rather than lateral 

acceleration alone, for the reasons 

provided in the NPRM. In response to 

Advocates, the injury tolerance level for 

the 5th percentile female were 

normalized to that for a 56 year old, 

rather than that for a 45 year old as done 

for the 50th percentile male dummy. 

The 82 g injury tolerance level is 

reasonable, balancing to the extent 

possible the dual goals of practicability 

and optimum safety performance. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51943 

82Walfisch, G., Fayon, C., Terriere, J., et al., 

‘‘Designing of a Dummy’s Abdomen for Detecting 

Injuries in Side Impact Collisions, 5th International 

IRCOBI Conference, 1980. 

83 Guillemot H., Besnault B., Robin, S., et al., 

‘‘Pelvic Injuries In Side Impact Collisions: A Field 

Accident Analysis And Dynamic Tests On Isolated 

Pelvic Bones,’’ Proceedings of the 16th ESV 

Conference, Windsor (1998). 

84Bouquet, et al. (1998) performed cadaver 

pendulum impact tests and showed that the pubic 

symphysis load cell in the EuroSID–1 dummy was 

a good predictor of pelvic fracture. See Bouquet, R, 

Ramet, M, Bermond, F, Caire, Y, Talantikite, Y, 

Robin, S, Voiglio, E, ‘‘Pelvis Human Response to 

Lateral Impact,’’ Proceedings of the 16th Enhanced 

Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference (1998). 

85The bony protrusion at the top of the femoral 

shaft opposite the ball of the hip joint. 

86 IIHS used the same assumption when 

developing performance standards for its consumer 

ratings program. See Arbalaez, R. A., et al., 

‘‘Comparison of the EuroSID–2 and SID–IIs in 

Vehicle Side Impact Tests with the IIHS Barrier,’’

46th Stapp Car Crash Journal (2002). 

87 In the IIHS side impact consumer ratings 

program, 5,100 N is the injury parameter cutoff 

Continued 

3. ES–2re Abdominal Criterion 

The ES–2re dummy offers abdominal 

injury assessment capability, a feature 

that is not present in the SID dummy. 

The agency proposed an abdominal 

injury criterion of 2,500 Newtons (N) 

(562 pounds). The agency sought 

comment on an alternative abdominal 

injury criterion within the range of 

2,400–2,800 N (540–629 pounds). This 

range corresponds to an approximate 

30–50 percent risk of AIS 3+ injury. 

The proposed abdominal injury 

criterion was developed using cadaver 

drop test data from Walfisch, et al. 

(1980).82 Analysis of this data indicated 

that applied force was the best predictor 

of abdominal injury, and an applied 

force of 2,500 N (562 pounds) 

corresponds to a 33 percent risk of AIS 

3+ injury. The MCW sled test data 

indicated that the applied abdominal 

force on the cadavers was 

approximately equal to the total 

abdominal force in the ES–2re dummy 

under similar test conditions. 

Comments on abdomen proposal: 

Ferrari supported the proposed 

abdominal force limit of 2,500 N 

because it was consistent with 

harmonization. The Alliance stated that 

the 2,500 N limit appears to be 

reasonable. The Alliance also stated that 

there were inconsistencies in the 

calculations of total abdominal force in 

the NPRM. In some cases the abdominal 

loading was calculated through 

instantaneous summation of the 

individual load cells, while in other 

cases the summation of individual peak 

values was utilized. The Alliance stated 

that it believed that an instantaneous 

summation of the abdominal load cells 

is the correct method to determine the 

total abdominal force in the ES–2 

dummy. 

Agency response: This final rule 

adopts an abdominal force limit of 2,500 

N for the reasons provided in the 

proposal. In response to the Alliance, 

the abdominal force has and will be 

calculated as the instantaneous 

summation of the abdominal load cell 

measurements. 

4. Pelvic Criterion 

A. ES–2re 

NHTSA proposed an ES–2re pelvic 

force limit of not greater than 6,000 N 

(1,349 pounds) (25 percent risk of AIS 

3+ injury). The ES–2re has two pelvic 

measurement capabilities. First, the ES–

2re has instrumentation to measure 

pelvic acceleration, as does the SID 

dummy. However, unlike the SID, the 

ES–2re is also capable of measuring the 

force (load) at the pubic symphysis, 

which is the region of the pelvis where 

the majority of injuries occur. A field 

analysis of 219 occupants in side impact 

crashes by Guillemot, et al. (1998) 

showed that the most common injury to 

the pelvis was fracture of the pubic rami 

(pelvic ring disruption).83 Pubic rami 

fractures are the first to occur because 

it is the weak link in the pelvis. 

The NPRM proposed to limit only 

pubic symphysis force. The agency did 

not propose an acceleration-based 

criterion because the agency believed 

that an injury threshold limit on pelvic 

acceleration is dependent on the impact 

location and the type of loading 

(distributed versus concentrated). 

Therefore, the agency did not believe 

that pelvic acceleration is as good a 

predictor of pelvic fracture as force. The 

scientific literature has documented that 

force alone is a good predictor of pelvic 

injury.84 Further, the pubic symphysis 

load injury criterion has been applied in 

the European side impact regulation EU 

96/27/EC as well as the EuroNCAP 

Program, so there is experience with 

this measure and some demonstration of 

its usefulness. The criterion in those 

programs is 6,000 N (1,349 lb). 

Comments on ES–2re pelvis proposal: 

The Alliance did not agree with the 

NPRM that the ES–2re dummy has 

provisions for instrumentation that can 

assess the potential for acetabulum and 

public symphysis injuries by way of 

load cell measurements. In its August 

2005 comment, the Alliance stated that 

although vehicles can meet a 6,000 N 

criterion, it is concerned that no 

experiments have been published 

documenting what the pubic symphysis 

load was at time of fracture, or as a 

function of external load for a human 

subject. The Alliance also stated that 

there are no data on the relationship of 

pubic symphysis load with impact 

velocity. The commenter recommended 

further study of the issue before a 

criterion is adopted. 

Ferrari agreed with the pelvic force 

limit of 6,000 N, while Advocates 

believed that the proposed pelvic force 

limit of 6,000 N is too high to protect 

the elderly. 

Agency response: NHTSA used the 

Bouquet pendulum test data to relate 

the applied pelvic force to cadavers to 

the pubic symphysis force of the 

EuroSID–1 dummy for identical test 

conditions. The impact surface in these 

tests loaded the iliac crest as well as the 

trochanter.85 The impactor mass varied 

between 12 kg to 16 kg and the impactor 

speed from 6 m/s to 13.7 m/s. Since the 

EuroSID–1 pelvis is similar to that of the 

ES–2re, the similar relationship would 

apply to the ES–2re. For AIS 2+ injured 

subjects, the dummy pubic force 

corresponds to 0.455 times applied 

pelvic force to the cadaver. 

The reanalysis of the Bouquet data 

after normalizing for the weight of the 

subject as well as the confirmation of 

the injury risk curves using the Zhu and 

Cavanaugh test data suggests that 

NHTSA’s injury risk curves and applied 

injury threshold for AIS 3+ pelvic 

fractures are reasonable. While the 

relationship between the ES–2 pubic 

loads and the cadaver applied force are 

dependent on the loading condition, 

similar scaling relationships have been 

used successfully for years for the 

EuroSID–I in the EU regulation. 

B. SID–IIs 

For the SID–IIs dummy, the pelvic 

injury criterion was developed from an 

analysis of the same cadaver impact 

data that was used for the development 

of the ES–2re pelvic injury criterion. 

The measured loads in these impact 

tests were distributed over a broad area 

of the pelvis that included the iliac crest 

and the greater trochanter. The 

measured applied pelvic force to the 

cadaveric subjects was mass-scaled to 

represent the applied forces on a 5th 

percentile female. Under similar impact 

conditions, the scaled applied pelvic 

force on the cadaveric subjects was 

assumed to be equal to the sum of the 

iliac and acetabular forces measured on 

the SID–IIs dummy.86 Therefore, the 

pelvic injury risk curves developed for 

the SID–IIs dummy were based on the 

maximum of the sum of the measured 

acetabular and iliac force. The proposed 

5,100 N force level for the SID–IIs 

corresponded approximately to a 25 

percent risk of AIS 2+ pelvic fracture.87


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

value for the ‘‘Good-Acceptable’’ range for the 

combined acetabulum and ilium force values. 

http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ 

measures_side.pdf 

88Zhu, J., Cavanaugh, J., King, A., ‘‘Pelvic 

Biomechanical Response and Padding Benefits in 

Side Impact Based on a Cadaveric Test Series,’’ SAE 

Paper No. 933128, 37th Stapp Car Crash 

Conference, 1993. 

Comments on SID–IIs pelvis proposal: 

The Alliance commented that NHTSA’s 

assumption that the normalized applied 

pelvic force in the cadaver tests was 

equal to the sum of the forces in iliac 

wing and acetabulum was not based on 

test data. In a September 2, 2005 

comment, the Alliance submitted 

component test data showing the 

distribution of forces between the iliac 

and acetabulum measured by PMHS and 

the SID–IIs. The commenter disagreed 

with the normalization of pelvic 

responses by the mass of the subject 

because, the commenter stated, the 

Alliance’s data suggest only a weak 

relationship between pelvic mass and 

geometry with the overall subject mass. 

The commenter believed that the sum of 

the internal forces (acetabulum plus 

sacro-iliac) is approximately 75 percent 

of the applied external force on the SID–

IIs dummy. Based on this information, 

the Alliance stated that ‘‘Even though 

the injury risk curves and associated 

relationship between PMHS and 

dummy data would have to [be] recalculated based on non-normalized 

data, an initial IARV for 25% risk of AIS 

3+ pelvic injury could be set at 8.55kN 

(0.75*11.4kN) for maximum combined 

acetabulum and iliac loads.’’

The Alliance also stated that there 

were inconsistencies in the calculations 

of combined pelvic force in the NPRM. 

In some cases the combined pelvis 

loading was calculated through 

instantaneous summation of the iliac 

and acetabulum load cells, while in 

other cases the summation of individual 

peak values was utilized. The Alliance 

stated that it believed that an 

instantaneous summation of the iliac 

and acetabulum load cells is the correct 

method to determine the combined 

pelvic force for the SID–IIs. 

Advocates said that older occupants 

suffering pelvic fracture are at a much 

higher risk of death. Advocates believed 

that vehicles equipped with side thorax 

bags could be able to meet a lower 

value. The commenter agreed with 

NHTSA that resultant accelerations 

should be considered rather than lateral 

acceleration alone. 

Agency response: The Bouquet pelvic 

impact test data indicated that for the 

same test conditions, the applied force 

on a lighter subject that results in injury 

was lower than that on a heavier 

subject. The agency continues to believe 

that such data should be normalized to 

a representative anthropometric subject. 

The normalizing procedure adopted was 

that of mass scaling, which has been 

applied by other researchers as well.88

To obtain the injury risk curve for a 

small female, the agency normalized the 

pelvic force data from the Bouquet 

pelvic impact tests to that of a small 

female weighing 48 kg (105 lb), as 

indicated in the technical document, 

‘‘Injury Criteria for Side Impact 

Dummies,’’ supra. In addition, the risk 

curve was adjusted to that for a 56 year 

old. At the time of developing the risk 

curve, there was no data available to 

relate the applied cadaver pelvic force 

in the Bouquet tests to equivalent 

acetabular and iliac force measured in 

the SID–IIs. Therefore, it was assumed 

that the applied cadaver pelvic force is 

equal to the sum of acetabular and iliac 

force in the SID–IIs. 

NHTSA analyzed the SID–IIs data 

submitted by the Alliance on September 

2, 2005 in conjunction with the relevant 

cadaver tests from Bouquet. We believe 

that the submitted data suggested that 

the sum of acetabular and iliac force of 

the SID–IIs is approximately 1.21 times 

that of the applied cadaver force under 

similar impact conditions of the 

Bouquet test setup. Accordingly, rather 

than the proposed pelvic force limit of 

5,100 N, we have adopted a pelvic force 

IARV limit of 5,525 N, which 

corresponds to a 25% risk of AIS 2+ 

injury using also a factor for reduced 

bone strength in older women (0.88). 

We note that IIHS considered a 5,525 N 

pelvic force to be in the middle of the 

acceptable range for the IIHS consumer 

ratings program. 

The combined pelvic force is 

calculated as an instantaneous 

summation of the measurements from 

the iliac and acetabulum load cells. 

In response to Advocates, the 5,525 N 

sum of acetabular and iliac force 

corresponds to the pelvic injury 

tolerance for a 56 year old 5th percentile 

female. This tolerance level thus 

accounts for the age of the occupant, 

and provides practicable protection to 

the elderly occupant. 

For convenience of the reader, the 

injury criteria adopted by this final rule 

are summarized below in Table 11: 

TABLE 11.—FINAL RULE INJURY CRITERIA

HIC36

Chest 

deflection 

(mm) 

Lower 

spine 

(g) 

Abdominal 

force 

(N) 

Pelvic 

force 

(N) 

ES–2re ................................................................................. 1,000 44 N/A 2,500 6,000 

SID–IIs ................................................................................. 1,000 N/A 82 N/A 5,525 

e. Lead Time 

1. Pole Test 

The agency proposed a phase-in 

period for the new vehicle-to-pole test 

based on crash test data (see, e.g., 

Appendix C of this preamble), the 

technologies that could be used to meet 

the proposed testing requirements, and 

the relatively low percentage of the fleet 

that had side air bags that were capable 

of meeting the proposed requirements. 

The NPRM proposed to include 

provisions under which manufacturers 

can earn credits towards meeting the 

applicable phase-in percentages if they 

meet the new requirements ahead of 

schedule. The NPRM proposed the 

following phase-in schedule: 

—During the production year beginning 

four years after publication of a final 

rule, 20 percent of each 

manufacturer’s light vehicles 

manufactured during the production 

year must comply with the 

requirements of the oblique pole test; 

—During the production year beginning 

five years after publication of a final 

rule, 50 percent of each 

manufacturer’s light vehicles 

manufactured during that production 

year must comply with the 

requirements; 

—All vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1 six years after 

publication of a final rule must 

comply with the requirements. 

In addition, we proposed a separate 

alternative to address the special 

problems faced by limited line 

manufacturers, alterers, and multistage 

manufacturers in complying with the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51945 

phase-in. NHTSA accordingly proposed 

to permit these manufacturers the 

option of achieving full compliance 

when the phase-in is completed. 

Comments received: The Alliance 

supported the proposed phase-in 

schedule for the oblique pole test. Air 

bag supplier TRW believed that the 

technology exists to meet the proposed 

performance requirements within the 

proposed timeframes and stated that it 

was prepared to respond to the needs of 

the manufacturers. Advocates, 

Consumers Union, and Public Citizen 

supported a three-year phase-in but 

recommended that the phase-in period 

begin two years after publication of a 

final rule. Advocates stated that if the 

agency were to adopt an earlier starting 

year than what had been proposed, it 

would support a more protracted phasein of four years for the new pole test and 

a two-year phase in of an upgraded 

MDB test. These commenters believed 

that the earlier phase-in period is 

supported by agency test results that the 

commenters believed showed that the 

majority of vehicles could comply 

relatively quickly with the new 

requirements. 

RVIA supported the agency’s proposal 

to allow alterers and multistage 

manufacturers to certify compliance at 

the end of the phase-in period. 

However, both RVIA and NTEA stated 

that chassis manufacturers do often not 

provide information until the last 

possible moment before the compliance 

date. Therefore, these commenters 

requested that we allow multistage 

manufacturers and alterers an additional 

year for compliance certification. 

Maserati and Ferrari supported the 

proposal to allow small volume vehicle 

manufacturers until the end of the 

phase-in period before having to certify 

for compliance. 

Agency response: After reviewing the 

comments to the NPRM, the results of 

the 214 fleet testing program, and 

production plans which show 

installation of side air bags in vehicles 

ahead of the proposed schedule, we 

have determined that it would be 

practicable to provide a 2-year lead time 

instead of the 4-year lead time proposed 

in the NPRM leading up to the 

beginning of the phased-in pole test 

requirements. Compared to the original 

schedule, this would accelerate the 

benefits expected to be provided by side 

air bag systems and other 

countermeasures by phasing-in the 

requirements starting with 20 percent of 

model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. 

Comments from air bag suppliers 

indicate that the schedule is practicable. 

As explained in the FRIA, the phasein schedule and percentages of this final 

rule facilitate the installation of side 

impact air bags and other safety 

countermeasures in light vehicles as 

quickly as possible, while the allowance 

of advanced credits provides 

manufacturers a way of allocating their 

resources in an efficient manner to meet 

the schedule. At the same time, many of 

the vehicles tested by the agency using 

the ES–2re and SID–IIs dummies 

produced dummy readings that 

exceeded the new pole test performance 

requirements. This confirms our belief 

that vehicle manufacturers are at 

different stages with respect to 

designing side impact air bags, and also 

face different constraints and challenges 

(e.g., differences in the technological 

advances incorporated in their current 

air bag systems, in engineering 

resources, and in the number and type 

of vehicles in which air bags need to be 

redesigned). Further, manufacturers’

product plans also show that they are at 

different stages with regard to planning 

for installation of side impact air bags, 

particularly thorax bags in light trucks. 

Our rationale for the lead time and 

phase-in is discussed in detail in the 

FRIA for this final rule, and is 

summarized below. 

• The agency analyzed the product 

plans submitted by seven vehicle 

manufacturers, whose combined 

production accounts for approximately 

90 percent of all light vehicle sales, 

responding to an NHTSA request for 

planned side air bag installations and 

projected sales through model year (MY) 

2011. The data show that 90 percent of 

all MY 2010 light vehicles will be 

equipped with side air bags protecting 

the head, and 72 percent will be 

equipped with side air bags protecting 

the thorax. The percentage of side air 

bags protecting the head is fairly 

uniform between the manufacturers; 

however, there are large differences 

between manufacturers in the 

percentage of thorax bags being 

planned, particularly for light trucks. 

• The agency’s 214 fleet testing 

program indicated that the majority of 

currently available head side air bags 

would meet the head protection 

requirement of this final rule’s pole test 

(about 80 percent of tested vehicles 

equipped with head air bags passed the 

pole test). However, of the vehicles 

tested equipped with thorax bags, only 

56 percent met the chest requirement in 

the pole test. One large truck (GVWR 

greater than 8,500 lb) that was tested 

also exceeded the injury criteria, 

indicating that structural changes may 

be needed. 

• From our testing, it appears that the 

pole test data show that side air bags 

installed in most passenger cars and 

small and medium size light trucks 

(including SUVs and minivans) may not 

need extensive modifications. While 

some of the window curtains and thorax 

bags we tested were not wide enough to 

provide the protection desired in the 

oblique impacts when tested with the 

SID–IIs 5th percentile female dummy, 

we believe that a two-year lead time is 

reasonable to redesign the head and 

thorax bags. It also appeared that 

extensive vehicle structural 

modifications were not necessary for the 

passenger cars and small and medium 

size light trucks. On the other hand, we 

estimate that it will take longer than two 

years to add a thorax bag to a vehicle 

model that has not had one previously. 

• For large light trucks, the test 

results indicate that structural changes 

may be needed. This is why we have 

provided a longer lead time for vehicles 

with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb. 

Based on our experience, if structural 

changes are needed, the modification 

could be done within 3–4 years. 

The agency analyzed the above factors 

in determining the lead time and phasein requirements of this final rule. The 20 

percent level at the two-year mark 

reflects the manufacturers’ production 

plans for the next two years: for vehicles 

that already have side air bags but 

whose bags do not comply with the pole 

test, two years provides sufficient time 

for manufacturers to make bags wider 

and potentially make other changes to 

pass the test, while it takes longer than 

two years to add one to a vehicle that 

has not had one previously. The 50 

percent phase-in percentage with a 

three-year lead time could result in one 

manufacturer introducing side thorax 

air bags ahead of its plans, but we 

believe it would be practicable to 

introduce thorax bags with 3 years of 

lead time, particularly with the use of 

advanced credits. The 75 percent phasein percentage was adopted to elongate 

the phase-in schedule one year longer 

than proposed, to provide vehicle 

manufacturers the flexibility of a fouryear phase-in schedule to incorporate 

side structure and restraint system 

modifications into their production 

cycles. Most vehicle lines would likely 

experience some level of redesign over 

the next three to four years. The 

additional phase-in year provides more 

opportunity to incorporate side impact 

protection design changes during the 

course of each manufacturer’s normal 

production cycle. 

In addition, as discussed in section 

IV.b.10 of this preamble, ‘‘Vehicle 

exclusions,’’ this final rule provides 

more lead time to meet the pole test 

requirements to manufacturers of 

vehicles with a GVWR greater than 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

89See 70 FR 7414 (Feb. 14, 2005). 

90Limited line and small volume manufacturers, 

alterers, and multistage manufacturers, are 

excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in requirements. 

A small volume manufacturer is an original vehicle 

manufacturer that produces or assembles fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United 

States. Limited line and small volume 

manufacturers, alterers, and multistage 

manufacturers are provided extra lead time so that 

they may maximize resources in planning to 

comply with the final rule. 

91Limited line and small volume manufacturers, 

alterers, and multistage manufacturers, are 

excluded from the 20/50/75 phase-in requirements. 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb) than proposed in the 

NPRM. These vehicles need more lead 

time because they have never been 

regulated under FMVSS No. 214’s 

dynamic requirements and are not 

subject to the industry’s voluntary 

commitment to install side air bags. 

Because these vehicles may need more 

redesign of the vehicle side structure, 

interior trim, and/or optimization of 

dynamically deploying head/side 

protection systems than light vehicles, 

this final rule does not subject these 

vehicles to the pole test requirements 

until September 1, 2013. 

In response to the RVIA and NTEA, 

NHTSA has issued a final rule 

pertaining to certification requirements 

for vehicles built in two or more stages 

and altered vehicles.89 In relevant part, 

the multi-stage certification final rule 

amended 49 CFR 571.8, Effective Date, 

to add a new subparagraph (b) providing 

as follows: 

Vehicles built in two or more stages and 

altered vehicles. Unless Congress directs or 

the agency expressly determines that this 

paragraph does not apply, the date for 

manufacturer certification of compliance 

with any standard, or amendment to a 

standard, that is issued on or after September 

1, 2006 is, insofar as its application to 

intermediate and final-stage manufacturers 

and alterers is concerned, one year after the 

last applicable date for manufacturer 

certification of compliance. Nothing in this 

provision shall be construed as prohibiting 

earlier compliance with the standard or 

amendment or as precluding NHTSA from 

extending a compliance effective date for 

intermediate and final-stage manufacturers 

and alterers by more than one year. 

Applying the above provision of the 

February 14, 2005 final rule to this 

rulemaking, we have provided finalstage manufacturers and alterers an 

additional year after completion of the 

phase-in to certify compliance of their 

vehicles with the pole test requirements. 

The manufacturers may voluntarily 

certify compliance with the standard 

prior to this date. 

For convenience of the reader, the 

phase-in schedule (with advanced 

credits) adopted by this final rule is 

summarized below and in Table 12: 

—20 percent of a vehicle manufacturer’s 

‘‘light’’ vehicles (GVWR less than or 

equal to 3,855 kg (8,500 lb)) 

manufactured during the period from 

September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 

will be required to comply with the 

standard; 90

—50 percent of light vehicles 

manufactured during the period from 

September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011; 

—75 percent of light vehicles 

manufactured during the period from 

September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012; 

—All light vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2012, including 

those produced by limited line and 

small volume manufacturers, without 

use of credits; 

—All vehicles with a GVWR greater 

than 3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2013 and all 

vehicles produced by alterers and 

multistage manufacturers, without use 

of credits. 

TABLE 12.—FINAL RULE PHASE-IN SCHEDULE

Production period Percent of each manufacturer’s vehicles that must comply 

during the production period 91

September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 ................................................... 20 percent (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb). 

September 1, 2010 to August 31, 2011 ................................................... 50 percent of vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb). 

September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012 ................................................... 75 percent of vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb). 

On or after September 1, 2012 ................................................................ All vehicles (excluding vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb), all vehicles produced by limited line and small volume manufacturers. 

On or after September 1, 2013 ................................................................ All vehicles GVWR >8,500 lb, all vehicles manufactured by alterers 

and multistage manufacturers. 

2. MDB test 

The agency believed that 

manufacturers could meet the 

requirements of the upgraded MDB test 

without the need for a phase-in period. 

Therefore, we proposed that the 

upgraded MDB test would be effective 4 

years after publication of a final rule. 

The agency requested comments on 

whether it would be appropriate to 

establish a phase-in for this requirement 

and whether a lead time shorter than 4 

years would be appropriate. 

The Alliance, DaimlerChrysler, 

Nissan, and Ferrari did not support the 

different effective dates for the pole test 

and the MDB test. The Alliance believed 

that ‘‘occupant safety benefits are 

optimized and manufacturers’

engineering resources are best utilized if 

the MDB and pole test requirements are 

addressed in vehicle designs 

simultaneously.’’ The commenter also 

suggested that there should be an 

opportunity for limited line 

manufacturers to apply credits against 

the full compliance requirement for one 

year. DaimlerChrysler anticipated that 

‘‘the requirements represented in the 

oblique pole test may effect [sic] 

structural changes which, in turn, will 

influence performance in the MDB test 

mode.’’ DaimlerChrysler believed that 

designing to the MDB and pole tests 

‘‘represents a development task which 

will require at least one product cycle 

(6 to 8 years) to complete.’’

Nissan stated that its experience with 

side impact crashes leads it to believe 

that significant changes would be 

necessary to comply with the proposed 

MDB requirements. It also noted that the 

application of advanced credits would 

allow Nissan to more efficiently 

distribute resources to meet the 

proposed requirements. 

Ferrari believed that ‘‘improved chest 

protection would be needed even by 

vehicles whose armrest is already 

designed to reduce the risk of 

abdominal injuries, and changes would 

also be needed to vehicles that provide 

good to optimum chest protection when 

tested according to SINCAP or 

EuroNCAP.’’ In Ferrari’s opinion, the 

upgraded MDB test would require equal, 

if not greater, amount of redesign as the 

pole test. Therefore, it recommended the 

same phase-in time as was proposed for 

the pole test. 

In contrast, Advocates, Consumers 

Union, and Public Citizen supported not 

having a phase-in for the upgraded MDB 

test. 

Agency response: After consideration 

of the comments, NHTSA has decided 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51947 

92The agency has placed materials in Docket 

NHTSA–1999–5098 relating to the risks to out-ofposition occupants from SIAB. 

93For the purposes of this discussion, ‘‘side air 

bags’’ means side thorax air bags and combination 

thorax/head air bags, and not window curtains or 

inflatable tubular structures. Our testing found no 

reason for concern with window curtains or 

inflatable tubular structures and out-of-position 

children or adults. 

94 ‘‘Road Vehicles—Test Procedures for 

Evaluating Occupant Interactions with Deploying 

Side Impact Airbags.’’ The ISO procedures were 

finalized in October 2001 (ISO–TR 14933, October 

2001). 

95 Injury Reference values are those that the 

majority of the TWG believed have a strong 

scientific basis. Injury Research Values are those 

that TWG believes currently have less scientific 

support or insufficient test experience to allow full 

confidence in their accuracy. 

to adopt a phase-in for the MDB test, 

and align the phase-in schedule with 

the oblique pole test requirements, with 

advance credits. An aligned phase-in 

will allow manufacturers to optimize 

engineering resources to design vehicles 

that meet the MDB and pole test 

requirements simultaneously, thus 

reducing costs. Manufacturers, such as 

Nissan, will also be able to use credits 

to more efficiently distribute their 

resources to meet the requirements. It 

will also allow limited line 

manufacturers the opportunity to 

comply with the phase-in schedule with 

credits, or alternatively to achieve full 

compliance when the phase-in is 

completed. Final-stage manufacturers 

and alterers will be required to comply 

with the MDB test requirements at the 

end of the phase in, but may voluntarily 

certify compliance with the 

requirements prior to this date. 

In response to Advocates, Consumers 

Union, and Public Citizen, the agency 

believes that it is appropriate to provide 

flexibility to manufacturers to upgrade 

both the pole and MDB requirements on 

the same schedule. When the agency 

published the NPRM, we did not 

anticipate that vehicles would need 

many structural changes to comply with 

the MDB test. We originally thought that 

the countermeasures necessitated by the 

rulemaking would entail a simple 

redesign of the door trim armrest area 

with additional padding and/or recontouring of the door trim surface. 

However, upon review of the comments 

and the results of our own limited 

testing with the SID–IIs in the MDB 

tests, we agree with Nissan and Ferrari 

that required changes might involve a 

redesign of the vehicle side structure, 

particularly to address high pelvic 

loading and elevated rib deflections of 

the SID–IIs in the rear seats of some 

vehicles. By aligning the phase-in 

schedule of the new MDB requirements 

with the pole test, the agency believes 

that vehicle manufacturers can better 

optimize their vehicle designs and the 

overall occupant protection systems for 

side impact crashes. 

In addition, the Alliance, Honda, and 

other commenters requested NHTSA to 

consider adopting the WorldSID into 49 

CFR part 572 and using the dummy in 

the phase-in of this final rule. We are 

currently evaluating the dummy for 

possible incorporation into part 572. If 

incorporation of the dummy appears 

reasonable, we could undertake 

rulemaking on the WorldSID to integrate 

the dummy into the pole and MDB tests 

of FMVSS No. 214 during the phase-in 

period of this final rule. We may also 

consider rulemaking to incorporate 

thoracic and abdominal rib deflection 

criteria for the SID–IIs in the pole and 

MDB tests adopted today. By aligning 

the phase-in schedule of the new MDB 

requirements with the pole test, more 

flexibility is provided for the possible 

implementation of those rulemaking 

actions. 

f. Related Side Impact Programs 

1. Out-of-Position Testing 

Background. The agency has been 

concerned about the potential risks of 

side impact air bags (SIAB) to out-ofposition (OOP) occupants, particularly 

children, from the first appearance of 

side air bag systems in vehicles. NHTSA 

initiated research in the fall of 1998 into 

the interactions between OOP children 

and side air bags. In April 1999, NHTSA 

held a public meeting to discuss the 

potential benefits and risks of side 

impact air bags and the development of 

possible test procedures to assess those 

risks.92

Safety Need. The agency has 

investigated over 110 side impact air 

bag deployment crashes through 

NHTSA’s Special Crash Investigations 

unit in order to determine whether a 

problem exists related to OOP 

occupants. There have been no fatalities 

and only one confirmed AIS 3+ injury 

due to a side air bag, this to a 76-yearold male driver. Side air bags 93 do not 

appear to pose a safety risk to OOP 

children, even taking into account 

exposure risks. 

Technical Working Group 

Recommended Procedures. In July 1999, 

the Alliance, AIAM, the Automotive 

Occupant Restraints Council, and IIHS 

formed a technical working group 

(TWG) to develop recommended test 

procedures and performance 

requirements to evaluate the risk of side 

air bags to children who are out-ofposition. In August 2000, the TWG 

issued a draft report, ‘‘Recommended 

Procedures For Evaluating Occupant 

Injury Risk From Deploying Side Air 

Bags,’’ The Side Air Bag Out-Of-Position 

Injury Technical Working Group, 

Adrian K. Lund (IIHS) Chairman, 

August 8, 2000. This report was revised 

in July 2003. The proposed procedures 

were based on the work of Working 

Group 3 of the International 

Organization of Standard (ISO) 

Technical Committee 10, which had 

developed draft procedures for 

evaluating side impact air bags.94

Under the TWG procedures, a 5th 

percentile female side impact dummy 

(SID–IIs), a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old 

Hybrid III frontal child dummy are 

placed in several positions close to the 

side air bag systems. The TWG 

procedures address side air bags that 

deploy from the seat backs (seatmounted), those that deploy from the 

door or rear quarter panel, typically just 

below the window sill (side-mounted), 

those that deploy from the roof rail 

above the door (roof-mounted), and 

roof-rail and seat back/door systems. 

After the dummy is positioned as 

specified in the procedures, the air bag 

is deployed statically, and the dummy 

injury measures due to the deployment 

of the air bag are determined. The 

measured forces are compared to TWG’s 

‘‘Injury Reference Values’’ and ‘‘Injury 

Research Values.’’ 95 The TWG’s limits 

on the Injury Reference Values are 

mostly the same as those in FMVSS No. 

208 for OOP testing of frontal air bags. 

NHTSA initiated a research program 

to evaluate the TWG procedures and 

propose, if necessary, any alternatives 

and modifications to assess the injury 

risk to OOP children. The agency’s test 

program included 11 vehicles equipped 

with front seat side air bags and one 

vehicle equipped with rear seat side air 

bags. The TWG OOP test procedures 

were used as the baseline for selecting 

test positions. However, tests were 

performed with the basic TWG 

procedures with and without NHTSA 

variations. Many different types of 

production systems, including doormounted thorax bags, seat-mounted 

head-thorax combination bags, and roofmounted head protection systems, were 

tested using 3-year-old and 6-year-old 

Hybrid–III child dummies. The results 

were reported in a technical paper, 

‘‘Evaluation of Injury Risk from Side 

Impact Air Bags.’’ (Proceedings of the 

17th ESV Conference, June 2001, Paper 

# 331.) The main purpose of the test 

program was to assess the potential 

safety risks that any system could pose 

to OOP small adults and children due 

to deploying side air bags. 

The main observations from the 

agency’s research is summarized in the 

following: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51948 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

96NHTSA has announced plans to evaluate near 

and long-term approaches to enhance NCAP 

activities. ‘‘The New Car Assessment Program; 

Suggested Approaches for Enhancements,’’ 72 FR 

3473; January 25, 2007, Docket 26555. An 

enhancement under consideration is to include the 

pole test in NCAP assesssments. 

97The FRIA may be obtained by contacting 

Docket Management at the address or telephone 

number provided at the beginning of this document. 

You may also read the document via the Internet, 

The TWG procedures address dummy 

sizes, seating positions, and expand the 

traditional injury assessment measures. 

The TWG procedures are quite 

comprehensive and are very successful 

at discriminating between aggressive 

and non-aggressive SIABs. 

The TWG procedures are adequate 

baseline procedures for SIAB OOP 

testing to minimize unreasonable risks 

to children and small adults. 

For the 3- and 6-year-old dummies, 

the TWG test procedures do not always 

find the worst case conditions for some 

current SIAB systems. 

The NPRM. The NPRM sought 

information on how meeting the 

requirements proposed by the NPRM 

would affect manufacturers’ ability to 

meet the TWG procedures. The NPRM 

stated that the agency will continue to 

monitor compliance with the TWG test 

procedures and requirements by 

automotive manufacturers, and will 

conduct further testing of new air bag 

designs. 

Comments: DaimlerChrysler 

commented that at this time, it does not 

know the extent of which the OOP 

occupants, as specified in the TWG, 

would be affected by the proposed 

requirements in the NPRM. However, 

DaimlerChrysler anticipated that side 

air bags designed in accordance to the 

NPRM may be in conflict with the TWG 

OOP requirements. Conversely, TRW 

believed that the side protection 

systems designed to meet the 

requirements of the NPRM could 

perform acceptably for OOP occupants. 

TRW also stated that it supports the 

efforts of the OOP TWG and does not 

believe there is a need for regulatory 

activity in this area. 

Agency response: We have considered 

the comments on whether meeting the 

requirements proposed by the NPRM 

would affect manufacturers’ ability to 

meet the TWG procedures. 

DaimlerChrysler, the only vehicle 

manufacturer commenting on this issue, 

stated it had no data to support its 

suggestion of a potential conflict 

between TWG and the proposed 

requirements of the NPRM, but 

anticipated there may be some. 

NHTSA’s testing has shown that, 

during the course of the 214 fleet testing 

program, there have been vehicles that 

have met the new requirements of this 

final rule and have also been reported 

to meet the TWG procedures. The Jetta, 

Volkswagen Beetle Convertible, Saab 9–

3 Convertible and Honda Accord have 

met the pole test injury criteria with the 

ES–2re and have been certified by their 

respective manufacturer to the TWG 

OOP requirements. The Honda CRV met 

the pole test criteria with the SID–IIs 

and also has been certified to TWG 

OOP. These examples show that the 

oblique pole and MDB test requirements 

are not in conflict with the TWG 

guidelines. Further, air bag supplier 

TRW stated that side impact protection 

systems designed to meet the 

requirements of the NPRM could 

perform acceptably for OOP occupants. 

Based on the available information, we 

conclude that vehicles are able to meet 

the requirements of this final rule and 

those of the TWG OOP. 

The agency monitors compliance with 

the TWG requirements by vehicle 

manufacturers. As part of the agency’s 

Buying a Safer Car consumer 

information program, we publish 

whether a vehicle was certified to the 

TWG OOP requirements. We only state 

that a vehicle has met those 

requirements after the manufacturer has 

provided data showing that it conforms 

to TWG OOP. The agency also conducts 

spot testing to verify those results. If the 

knowledge we gain from our test 

program indicates that further actions 

are needed, we will take appropriate 

actions to do so. 

2. Side NCAP 

Honda asked that NHTSA use 

WorldSID in testing vehicles under the 

side impact new car assessment 

program if the manufacturer uses 

WorldSID for that vehicle’s FMVSS No. 

214 certification. Autoliv wanted 

NHTSA to address the effects of the 

rulemaking on NCAP. ‘‘If there is a 

significant difference between Lateral 

NCAP and FMVSS 214 (MDB) test 

conditions and requirements, there may 

be significant challenges in meeting 

requirements of both (potentially 

conflicting) test conditions.’’

Agency response: We have carefully 

considered Honda’s suggestion. 

However, since we are not engaged in a 

rulemaking action on the WorldSID 

dummy at the present time, we can only 

commit to study the merit of Honda’s 

suggestion during the course of our 

future research. 

In response to Autoliv, we do not 

anticipate significant challenges or 

potential conflicts in meeting the 

requirements of both side NCAP and the 

final rule. The upgrade to FMVSS No. 

214 is an enhancement to the protection 

currently provided by the standard. 

Based on our crash testing to date, 

vehicles that achieved a rating of four 

stars or better for both occupants in side 

NCAP tests will likely be among the 

better performers in meeting the 

requirements of the final rule. (The 

FMVSS No. 214 test is conducted at a 

lower speed than the side NCAP test.) 

We believe countermeasures, such as 

new side structure enhancements, new 

crash sensors and/or algorithms, and/or 

new head protection systems, will only 

improve a vehicle’s performance in side 

NCAP and other side impact crashes. 

Nonetheless, NHTSA carefully 

ensures that any changes to NCAP are 

based on sound science and careful, 

objective analysis of supporting data.96

With the two new crash test dummies 

and a new crash test configuration 

added to the standard, the agency will 

continue to evaluate how to tailor the 

side NCAP program to complement the 

upgraded requirements of FMVSS No. 

214. 

3. Cross-References to FMVSS No. 214 

Honda pointed out that FMVSS Nos. 

201, 301 and 305 contain crossreferences to sections of FMVSS No. 214 

that will be renumbered by this final 

rule. We are amending those crossreferences in FMVSS Nos. 201, 301 and 

305 to achieve consistency with today’s 

final rule. 

g. Comments on the PEA 

Several comments were received on 

the agency’s preliminary economic 

assessment (PEA) for the NPRM. 

Commenters included Maserati and 

Ferrari, the Alliance, and the Specialty 

Equipment Manufacturers Association 

(SEMA). 

Maserati and Ferrari believed that 

NHTSA underestimated the costs of 

small manufacturers to comply with the 

proposed rule. The Alliance had 

questions about how the PEA estimated 

the benefits of the rulemaking, e.g., how 

the agency identified the target 

population of potentially injured 

occupants that would be addressed by 

the rulemaking. The Alliance also 

believed that we did not demonstrate 

the practicability of meeting the 

proposed test requirements, and stated 

that the principles set forth in the Data 

Quality Act were not met (the 

commenter believed that some of the 

data in the PEA had errors and that the 

PEA contained some unsupported 

assumptions). 

The agency has responded to the 

comments on the costs and benefits 

analysis and other issues of the PEA in 

the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(FRIA) 97 (see Appendix G of the FRIA), 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51949 

by following the instructions in the section below 

entitled, ‘‘Viewing Docket Submissions.’’ The FRIA 

will be listed in the docket summary. 

98The Agency’s analysis also found some fatality 

benefits for far-side unbelted occupants. In 2004 

FARS, there were 1,441 unbelted far-side occupant 

fatalities in side impacts. 

99Seven manufacturers (comprising about 90 

percent of all light vehicle sales) submitted 

confidential data responding to a NHTSA request 

for planned side air bag and projected sales through 

model year (MY) 2011. For remaining 

manufacturers, MY 2006 side air bag percentages 

were assumed to remain constant through MY 2011. 

The projected MY 2011 side air bag sales data show 

that the majority of vehicles (about 93%) will be 

equipped with side air bags. Based on the sales 

data, we expect that about 95% and 78% of these 

vehicles will be equipped with curtain and thorax 

bags, respectively. 

100The benefits of 100 percent of the fleet having 

side air bags compared to 0 percent of the fleet 

having side air bags, assuming 100 percent of 

vehicles have Electronic Stability Control systems, 

are estimated to be 976 fatalities and 932 AIS 3–

5 injuries. 

101We assumed that the performance of side air 

bags that would have been installed in MY 2011 

vehicles in the absence of the oblique pole test 

requirements would have been equivalent to the 

performance observed in the agency’s tests of MY 

2005 vehicles. 

which has been placed in the agency’s 

docket for this final rule. 

VII. Costs and Benefits 

As noted above, we have prepared an 

FRIA to accompany this final rule. The 

FRIA provides an analysis of the 

potential impacts of the vehicle-to-pole 

side impact test and the modifications 

to the MDB test. It also addresses 

comments the agency received in 

response to the agency’s Preliminary 

Economic Assessment that accompanied 

the NPRM. A summary of the FRIA 

follows. 

Benefits. The agency identified the 

baseline target population and then 

estimated the fatality or injury reduction 

rate. The target population was defined 

as occupants who sustained fatal and/or 

AIS 3+ injuries to the head, chest, 

abdomen or pelvis in side crashes. 

Target fatalities and MAIS 3–5 injuries 

were derived from 2000–2004 CDS. The 

agency limited the target population to 

crashes in which the delta–V was in the 

range of 19 to 40 km/h (12 to 25 mph). 

In identifying the target population, 

occupants with heights of 165 cm (65 

inches) or taller were assumed to be 

represented by the 50th percentile male 

dummy (the ES–2re), and the remaining 

occupants were assumed to be 

represented by the 5th percentile female 

dummy (the SID–IIs). As discussed in 

the FRIA, several additional 

adjustments were made to the target 

population to address voluntary 

commitments, belt use, children, etc. 

The target population was then 

determined to be 2,311 fatalities and 

5,891 non-fatal serious to critical MAIS 

AIS 3–5 injuries in crashes with a deltaV of 19 to 40 km/h (12–25 mph) for 

near-side occupants.98 The 2,311 

fatalities were divided into two groups 

for the analysis: (1) Vehicle-to-pole 

impacts; and (2) vehicle-to-vehicle or 

other roadside object impacts, which 

include partial ejections in these cases. 

Further adjustments were made for 

assumed full compliance with the 

FMVSS No. 201 upper interior 

requirements, 100 percent Electronic 

Stability Control (ESC) penetration in 

the model year (MY) 2011 new vehicle 

fleet, current performance that conforms 

to the final rule requirements adopted 

today (based on the results of the 

NHTSA 214 fleet testing program), and 

manufacturers’ planned installation of 

side air bags.99 The incremental benefits 

of the final rule are estimated as: 

—266 fatalities saved and 352 AIS 3–5 

injuries prevented, if a combination 

air bag, 2-sensor per vehicle system 

were used. (The combination air bag, 

2-sensor system would be the least 

costly side air bag system that would 

enable a vehicle to meet the standard.) 

—311 fatalities saved and 361 MAIS 3–

5 injuries prevented, if a window 

curtain and thorax air bag 2-sensor 

system were used. 

—311 fatalities saved and 371 MAIS 3–

5 injuries prevented, if a window 

curtain and thorax air bag 4-sensor 

system were used. 

Window curtains are estimated to 

have more benefits than combination air 

bags because we assumed that window 

curtains would have an impact on 

partial ejections that occur in side 

impacts without rollover, while we 

assume no benefits for combination air 

bags in far-side partial ejections without 

rollover. No benefits are claimed for 

complete ejections in rollovers, since 

the effectiveness of the combination air 

bags or window curtains to contain 

occupants in a rollover event has not 

been established at this time. 

The majority of the benefits are for 

front seat occupants, but a small number 

of benefits are included for rear seat 

occupants. 

TABLE 13.—BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE BY COUNTERMEASURE 100

Combination 

air bag 

2 sensors 

Curtain & 

thorax bags 

2 sensors 

Curtain & 

thorax bags 

4 sensors 

Fatalities ....................................................................................................................................... 266 311 311 

AIS 3–5 Injuries ........................................................................................................................... 352 361 371 

Costs. In the FRIA, the agency 

discusses the costs of the different 

technologies that could be used to 

comply with the tests, and also 

estimates compliance tests costs. Based 

on the results of the 2005 tests of 

vehicles with side air bags (Section IV 

of this preamble, supra), the agency 

estimates that the majority of vehicle 

manufacturers currently installing side 

head air bag systems will have to widen 

their present air bags. They might not 

need to add side impact sensors to their 

vehicles or develop more advanced 

sensors to meet an oblique pole test. 

Potential compliance costs for the pole 

test vary considerably, and are 

dependent upon the types of head and 

thorax side air bags chosen by the 

manufacturers and the number of 

sensors used in the system. As noted 

above, NHTSA estimates that the 

combination air bag, 2-sensor system 

would be the least costly side air bag 

system that would enable a vehicle to 

meet the standard. 

The costs for installing new systems 

are estimated to range from: 

—a wide combination head/thorax side 

air bag system with two sensors at 

$126 per vehicle, 

—to wide window curtains and wide 

thorax side air bags with four sensors 

at a cost of $280 per vehicle. 

Given the level of compliance found 

in our vehicle testing 101 and the 

manufacturers’ planned installation of 

side air bags in MY 2011, the total 

annual incremental cost to meet this 

final rule with the lower cost 

combination air bag is estimated to be 

$429 million. The total annual 

incremental cost for the wide window 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51950 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

curtains and wide thorax side air bags 

with four sensors is estimated to be $1.1 

billion (2004 dollars). This amounts to 

a range of total incremental annual cost 

of $429 million to $1.1 billion. 

The agency’s data show that the 

majority of side air bag systems are 

currently equipped with two side 

impact sensors. The total annual 

incremental cost for the most likely air 

bag system (curtain and thorax bag twosensor countermeasure) would be about 

$560 million. 

TABLE 14.—INCREMENTAL TOTAL COSTS AND VEHICLE COSTS

[$2004] 

Combination 

head/thorax 

side air bags 

Window curtain and thorax 

side air bags, 

2 sensors 

Window curtain and thorax 

side air bags, 

4 sensors 

Incremental total costs ................................................................................................................. *$429 *$560 **$1.1 

Total vehicle cost per system ...................................................................................................... 126 243 280 

*Million. 

**Billion. 

Cost Per Equivalent Fatality 

Prevented. NHTSA estimated the costs 

per equivalent life saved, using a 3 and 

a 7 percent discount rate. The low end 

of the range is $1.6 million per 

equivalent life saved, using a 3 percent 

discount rate. That low end estimate 

assumes that manufacturers will install 

combination head/thorax air bags rather 

than separate window curtains and 

thorax air bags, in vehicles that 

currently have no side impact air bags 

or only thorax side impact air bags. The 

high end of the range is $4.6 million per 

equivalent life saved, using a 7 percent 

discount rate. The high end estimate 

assumes that manufacturers will install 

separate window curtains and thorax air 

bags with four sensors. 

TABLE 15.—COSTS PER EQUIVALENT LIFE SAVED PRESENT DISCOUNTED VALUE

[in millions] 

Cost per equivalent life saved 

Combination 

head/thorax 

side air bags 

Window curtain and thorax 

side air bags, 

2 sensors 

Window curtain and thorax 

side air bags, 

4 sensors 

3% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ $1.6 $1.8 $3.7 

7% Discount Rate ........................................................................................................................ 2.0 2.3 4.6 

Net Benefits. Net benefit analysis 

differs from cost effectiveness analysis 

in that it requires that benefits be 

assigned a monetary value, and that this 

value is compared to the monetary value 

of costs to derive a net benefit. NHTSA 

estimates that the high end of the net 

benefits is $561 million for the 

combination head/thorax air bags using 

a 3 percent discount rate and the low 

end is negative $225 million for the 

curtain + thorax bags with four sensors, 

using a 7 percent discount rate. Both of 

these are based on a $3.7 million cost 

per equivalent life saved. 

TABLE 16.—NET BENEFITS WITH $3.7M COST PER LIFE

[In millions] 

Countermeasure 

Benefit Net benefit 

3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount 

Combo + 2 Sensors ......................................................................................... $990 $787 $561 $357 

Curtain + 2 Sensors ......................................................................................... 1,127 895 567 336 

Curtain + 4 Sensors ......................................................................................... 1,131 899 7 ¥225 

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The agency has considered the impact 

of this rulemaking action under 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. This 

rulemaking is economically significant 

and was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under E.O. 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ The rulemaking action has 

also been determined to be significant 

under the Department’s regulatory 

policies and procedures. The FRIA fully 

discusses the estimated costs and 

benefits of this rulemaking action. The 

costs and benefits are summarized in 

section VII of this preamble, supra. 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended, requires agencies to 

evaluate the potential effects of their 

proposed and final rules on small 

businesses, small organizations and 

small governmental jurisdictions. I 

hereby certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small organizations and small 

governmental units will not be 

significantly affected since the potential 

cost impacts associated with this action 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51951 

102Avanti, Panoz, Saleen, and Shelby. 

will not significantly affect the price of 

new motor vehicles. 

The rule will directly affect motor 

vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA 

requested comments on an addendum to 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) that was contained in the 

Preliminary Economic Assessment 

(PEA) for the May 17, 2004 NPRM on 

FMVSS No. 214 (Docket No. 17694). 

The addendum to the IRFA discusses 

the economic impacts on small vehicle 

manufacturers, of which there are 

four 102 (70 FR 2105; January 12, 2005). 

NHTSA stated in the addendum that 

our tentative conclusion was that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on the four 

manufacturers. We believed that the 

small vehicle manufacturers are not 

likely to certify compliance with a 

vehicle test, but will use a combination 

of component testing by air bag 

suppliers and engineering judgment. 

Already much of the air bag work for 

these small vehicle manufacturers is 

done by air bag suppliers. Typically, air 

bag suppliers are supplying larger 

vehicle manufacturers during the 

development and phase-in period, and 

do not have the design capabilities to 

handle all of the smaller manufacturers. 

The rulemaking proposal accounted for 

this limitation by proposing to allow 

small manufacturers that have limited 

lines to comply with the upgraded 

requirements at the end of the phase-in 

period, to reduce the economic impact 

of the rule on these small entities. 

As explained in the addendum, we 

also believed that the rulemaking would 

not have a significant impact on the 

small vehicle manufacturers because the 

market for the vehicles produced by 

these entities is highly inelastic. 

Purchasers of these vehicles are 

attracted by the desire to have an 

unusual vehicle. Further, all light 

vehicles must comply with the 

upgraded side impact requirements. 

Since the price of complying with the 

rule will likely be passed on to the final 

consumer, the price of competitor’s 

models will increase by similar 

amounts. In addition, we did not believe 

that raising the price of a vehicle to 

include the value of a combination 

head-thorax side air bag will have 

much, if any, effect on vehicle sales. 

The agency received no comments on 

the addendum to the IRFA concerning 

the impacts of the rule on small vehicle 

manufacturers. 

For the reasons explained in the 

IRFA, NHTSA concludes that this final 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on small vehicle manufacturers. 

The final rule indirectly affects air bag 

manufacturers, dummy manufacturers 

and seating manufacturers. The agency 

does not believe that there are any small 

manufacturers of air bags. There are 

several manufacturers of dummies and/ 

or dummy parts, some of which are 

considered small businesses. The rule is 

expected to have a positive impact on 

these types of small businesses by 

increasing demand for dummies. 

NHTSA knows of approximately 21 

suppliers of seating systems, about half 

of which are small businesses. If seatmounted head/thorax air bags are used 

to meet the new pole test, the cost of the 

seats will increase. However, we believe 

that the costs will be passed on to the 

consumer. NHTSA believes that air bag 

manufacturers will provide the seat 

suppliers with the engineering expertise 

necessary to meet the new requirements. 

NHTSA notes that final-stage vehicle 

manufacturers and alterers buy 

incomplete vehicles, add seating 

systems to vehicles without seats, and/ 

or make other modifications to the 

vehicle, such as replacing existing seats 

with new ones or raising the roofs of 

vehicles. A second-stage manufacturer 

or alterer modifying a vehicle with a 

seat-mounted thorax air bag might need 

to use the existing seat or rely on a seat 

manufacturer to provide the necessary 

technology. In either case, the impacts 

of this final rule on such entities will 

not be significant. Final-stage 

manufacturers or alterers engaged in 

raising the roofs of vehicles will not be 

affected by this rulemaking, since this 

final rule excludes vehicles with raised 

or altered roofs from the pole test. 

The Specialty Equipment Market 

Association (SEMA) believed that 

‘‘aftermarket equipment manufacturers 

and other entities that diagnose, service, 

repair and upgrade motor vehicles’’ may 

be affected by the final rule if their 

installed products interact with 

equipment or systems used by vehicle 

manufacturers to meet the FMVSS No. 

214 requirements. SEMA’s comment 

focused on three issues. The following 

discusses those comments and our 

responses thereto. 

1. SEMA said that, with regard to 

frontal air bags and air bag sensors 

installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection,’’

manufacturers of aftermarket leather 

and fabric seating products frequently 

have not had access to electronic 

information about the frontal air bag 

sensor in the vehicle seat. Consequently, 

SEMA stated, the aftermarket 

manufacturer or installer could not 

reprogram the sensor after the product 

has been installed, and in many 

instances, had to return the vehicle to 

the dealership for reprogramming. 

SEMA suggested that NHTSA should—

make sure that electronic data is open and 

available in such a way so as not to preclude 

installation, servicing, or repair of legal 

aftermarket equipment * * * Specifically, 

SEMA believes it is appropriate to follow the 

EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] OBD 

[on-board diagnostic system] precedent in 

that any and all electronic data, or any that 

can be accessed through the available 

technology, must be made available to the 

vehicle owner to the extent that such access 

is available to other parties. Further, SEMA 

believes it is appropriate that NHTSA 

consider setting standards for data retrieval 

communication protocols, connectors and 

tools, and that such information and tools be 

made available to the public in a timely and 

cost-effective manner. 

Agency response: Requiring vehicle 

manufacturers to ensure that electronic 

information about the SIABs is ‘‘open 

and available * * * so as not to 

preclude installation, servicing, or 

repair’’ of aftermarket equipment is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, we do not have any 

information showing that such a 

requirement is necessary or appropriate 

at this time. Vehicles currently include 

many complex systems, and although 

dealer involvement may be necessary in 

some cases, the marketplace has made 

available sufficient information to 

permit convenient maintenance and 

repair of such systems. We do not 

believe that SIAB technology will prove 

any different in this regard. There are a 

substantial number of vehicles currently 

equipped with SIAB systems—some 

portion of which it is expected would 

have had aftermarket modifications of 

the types suggested by SEMA—and 

there has been no indication of any 

problem to date. Additional information 

may become available in the future that 

sheds light on how SIAB systems 

interact with other vehicle equipment 

and systems. We will monitor the data 

and test information we receive on this 

issue, and we encourage all interested 

parties to share relevant information 

with the agency and the public as it 

becomes available. If we later find 

significant safety risks associated with 

the interaction between SIAB systems 

and items of equipment (aftermarket or 

otherwise), we will work toward 

addressing these possible problems. 

Further, we are not requiring vehicle 

manufacturers to share all electronic 

data with the vehicle owner. Such a 

requirement is unnecessary at this time, 

for the reasons discussed above. We 

have not been presented with any 

evidence of a safety or compatibility 

problem between SIABs and other 

vehicle systems or equipment, and the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51952 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

103Office of Advocacy, United States Small 

Business Administration, ‘‘A Guide for Government 

Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act,’’ 2003, p. 20. 

104 Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 773 F.2d 

327, 341 (DC Cir. 1985) (stating that ‘‘Congress did 

not intend to require that every agency consider 

every indirect effect that any regulation might have 

on small businesses in any stratum of the national 

economy.’’). 

105 Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 

142 F.3d 449, 467 (DC Cir. 1998) (holding that 

‘‘Because the deemed-to-comply rule did not 

subject any aftermarket businesses to regulation, 

EPA was not required to conduct a flexibility 

analysis as to small aftermarket businesses. It was 

only obliged to consider the impact of the rule on 

small automobile manufacturers subject to the rule, 

and it met that obligation.’’). 

106 Id., fn 18, at 467 (describing 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3) 

and (4)). 

107See also submission from Kugi Florian in 

NHTSA Docket 17694 (Walser aftermarket seat 

cover made compatible with seat-mounted side air 

bags). 

market has tended to respond to 

consumer demands that sufficient 

information be provided to permit third 

party vehicle servicing. Nonetheless, 

NHTSA strongly encourages SEMA and 

its members to develop relationships 

with vehicle and SIAB system 

manufacturers to research and find 

solutions to these questions. 

2. SEMA stated that ‘‘many 

dealerships have received service 

bulletins from the vehicle manufacturer 

warning them against the installation of 

aftermarket seat covers, citing concern 

that installation may interfere with the 

front seat airbag sensors.’’ SEMA 

suggested that NHTSA should ‘‘issue a 

regulation or policy statement which 

states that it is illegal to issue service 

bulletins or other communications that 

warn dealers about potential warranty 

denial based on the mere presence or 

installation of aftermarket equipment.’’

Agency response: We are unable to 

concur with SEMA that NHTSA should 

provide the requested regulation and/or 

policy statement governing the 

communications between manufacturers 

and dealers on warranties. 

Communications between vehicle 

manufacturers and their dealers on the 

warranties is a topic that is beyond the 

scope of the rulemaking. However, we 

encourage OEMs and the aftermarket 

sales industry to work together to share 

information on the effect of aftermarket 

equipment on vehicle warranties. 

3. SEMA believed that NHTSA did 

not consider all of the small businesses 

potentially impacted by the final rule. 

The commenter believed that the rule 

‘‘will directly affect a number of small 

entities including manufacturers and 

installers of seating equipment, interior 

upholstery, sunroofs and running 

boards. Beyond that, there are 

potentially thousands of small entities 

that may have the opportunity to 

diagnose, service, repair and upgrade 

motor vehicles.’’ SEMA stated, ‘‘While it 

may be possible to work with the air bag 

manufacturers to design seating 

equipment, upholstery, sunroofs, 

running boards and other items of 

equipment that may effect [sic] air bag 

sensors, the information is of little value 

if the vehicle’s computer system needs 

to be reprogrammed to accommodate 

the new equipment. The reg-flex 

analysis does not take into account that 

the vehicle manufacturers are the source 

of this information, not the air bag 

manufacturers. Unless such service 

information is forthcoming, thousands 

of small businesses may be directly 

impacted by the rule change.’’

Agency response: In responding to 

this comment, we note that NHTSA is 

not required to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for entities not 

directly impacted by its rulemaking. In 

its 2003 publication titled ‘‘A Guide for 

Government Agencies: How to Comply 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’

(‘‘RFA Guide’’), the Small Business 

Administration states that ‘‘[t]he courts 

have held that the RFA requires an 

agency to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of small entity 

impacts only when a rule directly 

regulates them.’’ 103 The cases cited by 

the RFA Guide indicate that a rule 

‘‘directly regulates’’ only the entities to 

which the rule applies—for example, 

electric utilities but not independent 

electricity cooperatives in a FERC ratesetting regulation,104 or automobile 

manufacturers but not aftermarket 

businesses in an EPA ‘deemed-tocomply’ rule.105 In Motor & Equipment 

Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, the D.C. Circuit 

described the distinction as follows: 

‘‘The RFA itself distinguishes between 

small entities subject to an agency rule, 

to which its requirements apply, and 

those not subject to the rule, to which 

the requirements do not apply.’’ 106

This final rule establishes 

performance requirements for side 

impact protection and applies to new 

motor vehicles. The only entities subject 

to these requirements are vehicle 

manufacturers. NHTSA has already 

analyzed the potential impacts of the 

rule on these directly affected entities, 

as the FRIA makes clear. Nothing in this 

rule subjects the entities described by 

SEMA to NHTSA’s regulation. 

With that said, although NHTSA has 

no obligation to perform a regulatory 

flexibility analysis to consider the 

potential impacts of this final rule on 

such non-directly regulated entities, we 

are nevertheless concerned about the 

impact our rules have on all parties. 

Again, we have considered the effects 

that this final rule might have on 

aftermarket motor vehicle equipment 

manufacturers and the motor vehicle 

service industry. The agency is not 

aware of any significant compatibility 

problems between SIAB systems and 

other vehicle equipment, and SEMA 

provided no evidence that side air bag 

technology will preclude installation, 

servicing, or repair of aftermarket 

equipment, including whether and the 

degree to which particular aftermarket 

modifications of a vehicle entail the 

reprogramming of a vehicle’s computer 

system. The agency cannot hypothesize 

on all possible interactions between 

SIAB technologies and different vehicle 

equipment, and we are unable to 

address speculative arguments regarding 

compatibility problems for which there 

is no evidence. There are a substantial 

number of vehicles currently equipped 

with SIAB systems—some portion of 

which it is expected would have had 

aftermarket modifications of the types 

suggested by SEMA—and there has been 

no indication of any problem to date. 

Nonetheless, we encourage 

manufacturers of aftermarket equipment 

that cannot independently assess 

whether their products will affect 

original SIAB systems to collaborate 

with air bag and vehicle manufacturers 

to make that assessment or to undertake 

concerted testing to develop products 

that are compatible with the SIABs. 

SEMA’s comment indicated that 

companies that supply leather or fabric 

seating already ‘‘have tested their 

products to ensure that the leather or 

fabric does not adversely impact the air 

bag seat sensors.’’ 107 We believe that the 

aftermarket installers of other products 

can likewise embark on testing or 

collaborative work with air bag and 

vehicle manufacturers to ensure that the 

installation is compatible with the 

vehicles’ SIAB systems. 

Further, aftermarket businesses have 

already been servicing vehicles with 

SIABs and other complex systems that 

use computer technology. Although 

vehicle dealer involvement may be 

necessitated in some cases, we do not 

believe that involvement has resulted in 

a significant economic impact on the 

businesses. The marketplace has 

generally made available sufficient 

information to permit the aftermarket 

installation of equipment, and the 

maintenance and repair of vehicles with 

SIAB and other systems. There is no 

indication that vehicle manufacturers 

and dealers have not made and will not 

continue to make necessary information 

reasonably available to the aftermarket 

sales and service industries. However, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51953 

108Additional information concerning the 

potential impacts of the requirements on small 

entities is presented in the FRIA. 

we will continue to monitor the data 

and test information we receive on this 

issue, and we encourage all interested 

parties to share relevant information 

with the agency and the public as it 

becomes available. If we later find 

problems with the information being 

made available to the aftermarket sales 

and service industries, we will take 

appropriate steps to address these 

problems. 

For the aforementioned reasons, we 

conclude that this rule will not have a 

significant negative economic impact on 

a substantial number of small 

entities.108

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The agency has concluded that 

the rule does not have federalism 

implications because the rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

Further, no consultation is needed to 

discuss the preemptive effect of today’s 

rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in at least two ways. First, the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act contains an express 

preemptive provision: ‘‘When a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect under 

this chapter, a State or a political 

subdivision of a State may prescribe or 

continue in effect a standard applicable 

to the same aspect of performance of a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment only if the standard is 

identical to the standard prescribed 

under this chapter.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command 

that preempts State law, not today’s 

rulemaking, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

In addition to the express preemption 

noted above, the Supreme Court has 

also recognized that State requirements 

imposed on motor vehicle 

manufacturers, including sanctions 

imposed by State tort law, can stand as 

an obstacle to the accomplishment and 

execution of a NHTSA safety standard. 

When such a conflict is discerned, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes their State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). 

NHTSA has not outlined such potential 

State requirements in today’s 

rulemaking, however, in part because 

such conflicts can arise in varied 

contexts, but it is conceivable that such 

a conflict may become clear through 

subsequent experience with today’s 

standard and test regime. NHTSA may 

opine on such conflicts in the future, if 

warranted. See id. at 883–86. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation, with base year of 1995). These 

effects are discussed earlier in this 

preamble and in the FRIA. UMRA also 

requires an agency issuing a final rule 

subject to the Act to select the ‘‘least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule.’’

The preamble and the FRIA identify 

and consider a number of alternatives, 

concerning factors such as test speed, 

test angle, number and type of dummies 

used in the test, and phase-in schedule. 

Alternatives considered by and rejected 

by us would not fully achieve the 

objectives of the alternative preferred by 

NHTSA (a reasonable balance between 

the benefits and costs of a 20 mph 

oblique pole test with the ES–2re and 

the SID–IIs, and a reasonable balance of 

the benefits and costs of an upgrade of 

the MDB test). Further, Section IX of the 

FRIA discusses three alternative 

regulatory approaches to the oblique 

pole test that we considered: (a) Using 

the 90 degree pole test set forth in 

FMVSS No. 201; (b) using the Voluntary 

Commitment approach (perpendicular 

moving barrier test with one test 

dummy); and (c) applying a pole test to 

front and rear seats. The agency believes 

that it has selected the most costeffective alternative that achieves the 

objectives of the rulemaking. 

e. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have any significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

f. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996) requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (7) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. This document is consistent 

with that requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The preemptive effect of this 

rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes 

further that there is no requirement that 

individuals submit a petition for 

reconsideration or pursue other 

administrative proceeding before they 

may file suit in court. 

g. Plain Language 

Executive Order 12866 requires each 

agency to write all rules in plain 

language. Application of the principles 

of plain language includes consideration 

of the following questions: 

• Have we organized the material to 

suit the public’s needs? 

• Are the requirements in the rule 

clearly stated? 

• Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that isn’t clear? 

• Would a different format (grouping 

and order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing) make the rule easier to 

understand? 

• Would more (but shorter) sections 

be better? 

• Could we improve clarity by adding 

tables, lists, or diagrams? 

• What else could we do to make the 

rule easier to understand? 

If you have any responses to these 

questions, please write to us with your 

views. 

h. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

Under the PRA of 1995, a person is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information by a Federal agency 

unless the collection displays a valid 

OMB control number. The final rule 

contains a collection of information 

because of the proposed phase-in 

reporting requirements. There is no 

burden to the general public. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51954 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The collection of information requires 

manufacturers of passenger cars and of 

trucks, buses and MPVs with a GVWR 

of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, to 

annually submit a report, and maintain 

records related to the report, concerning 

the number of such vehicles that meet 

the vehicle-to-pole and MDB test 

requirements of FMVSS No. 214 during 

the phase-in of those requirements. The 

phase-in of both the pole and MDB test 

requirements will cover three years. The 

purpose of the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements is to assist 

the agency in determining whether a 

manufacturer of vehicles has complied 

with the requirements during the phasein period. 

We are submitting a request for OMB 

clearance of the collection of 

information required under today’s final 

rule. These requirements and our 

estimates of the burden to vehicle 

manufacturers are as follows: 

NHTSA estimates that there are 21 

manufacturers of passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 

kg (10,000 lb) or less; 

NHTSA estimates that the total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden resulting from the collection of 

information is 1,260 hours; 

NHTSA estimates that the total 

annual cost burden, in U.S. dollars, will 

be $0. No additional resources will be 

expended by vehicle manufacturers to 

gather annual production information 

because they already compile this data 

for their own use. 

A Federal Register document has 

provided a 60-day comment period 

concerning the collection of 

information. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) promulgated 

regulations describing what must be 

included in such a document. Under 

OMB’s regulations (5 CFR 320.8(d)), 

agencies must ask for public comment 

on the following: 

(1) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) How to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and, 

(4) How to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

The NPRM requested that 

organizations and individuals wishing 

to submit comments on the information 

collection requirements direct them to 

the docket for the NPRM. The agency 

did not receive any comments on the 

information collection requirements. 

i. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Under the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104–113), 

all Federal agencies and departments shall 

use technical standards that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, using such technical standards as a 

means to carry out policy objectives or 

activities determined by the agencies and 

departments. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and the Society of 

Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA 

directs us to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when we decide not 

to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

When NHTSA developed the vehicleto-pole test that was adopted into 

FMVSS No. 201, the agency based the 

test on a proposed ISO test procedure 

found in ISO/SC10/WG1 (October 

2001). In developing today’s final rule, 

we considered the draft ISO standard 

and ISO draft technical reports related 

to side air bags performance to guide 

our decision-making to the extent 

consistent with the Safety Act. The 

notable differences between the draft 

ISO standard and this final rule relate 

to: the diameter of the pole (ISO draft 

technical reports recommend the use of 

a 350 mm pole, while NHTSA uses a 

254 mm pole in FMVSS No. 201 and 

will use such a pole in FMVSS No. 214), 

and the angle of approach of the test 

vehicle to the pole (ISO specifies 90 

degrees, while our final rule uses a 75 

degree angle). The agency’s reasons for 

a 254 mm pole were discussed in the 

NPRM. The reasons for an oblique, 32 

km/h (20 mph), angle of approach were 

discussed earlier in this document. 

IX. Appendices 

Appendix A—Glossary 

Categories of Side Air Bags 

Combined (also called ‘‘integrated,’’

‘‘combination’’ or ‘‘combo’’) side air bag 

system. Incorporates both a head air bag 

system and a torso side air bag into one 

unit that is typically installed in the seat 

back. 

Curtain. A ‘‘curtain’’ type side air bag 

system (referred to as ‘‘curtain bags,’’

‘‘side curtain air bags,’’ ‘‘window 

curtains,’’ ‘‘air curtains,’’ or ‘‘AC’’). A 

curtain is an inflatable device that is 

fixed at two points, one at the front end 

of the vehicle’s A-pillar and the other 

along the roof rail near the C-pillar. It is 

installed and stored un-deployed under 

the roof rail headliner. When deployed, 

the curtain inflates to provide a 

cushioned contact surface for the head, 

spanning the side of the vehicle, down 

from the roof rail across the windows. 

This system would provide head 

protection for front and possibly rear 

seat occupants in outboard seating 

positions in side crashes. 

Head air bag system (or head 

protection system (HPS)). The term 

comprises different types of head 

protection systems, such as curtain bags, 

installed either as a stand alone system 

or combined with a thorax side air bag. 

Side impact air bag (SIAB). The term 

refers to side air bags generally. 

Torso (or thorax) side air bag. A 

‘‘torso’’ (or ‘‘thorax’’) side air bag that 

can be installed in either the seat back 

or the vehicle door. As the name 

indicates, the system would provide 

protection for the torso but not for the 

head. 

Appendix B—Existing FMVSS No. 214 

FMVSS No. 214 specifies two types of 

performance requirements intended to 

protect the thoracic and pelvic regions 

of an occupant: ‘‘quasi-static’’

requirements and ‘‘dynamic’’

requirements. They apply to passenger 

cars and to multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks, and buses with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less 

and 6,000 lb or less, respectively. 

The quasi-static requirements limit 

the extent to which the side door 

structure of a vehicle is pushed into the 

passenger compartment during a side 

impact. The standard requires each side 

door to resist crush forces that are 

applied by a piston pressing a 300 mm 

(12 inch) steel cylinder against the 

door’s outer surface in a laboratory test. 

Since the requirement became effective 

in 1973, vehicle manufacturers have 

generally chosen to meet the 

requirement by reinforcing the side 

doors with metal beams. 

The dynamic side impact test 

currently regulates the level of crash 

forces that can be experienced by an 

occupant’s chest and pelvis when seated 

in a vehicle struck in a side impact. The 

dynamic requirements focus on thoracic 

and pelvic protection because contact 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51955 

between the thorax and the side interior 

has been the primary source of serious 

injuries and fatalities. 

The dynamic side impact test 

simulates a 90-degree intersection 

impact of a striking vehicle traveling 48 

km/h (30 mph) into a target (i.e., test) 

vehicle traveling 24 km/h (15 mph). 

This is achieved by running a moving 

deformable barrier (MDB), which has all 

wheels rotated 27 degrees (crab angle) 

from the longitudinal axis, into the side 

of a stationary (test) vehicle at a 90- 

degree contact angle with a 54 km/h 

(33.5 mph) closing speed. At the initial 

contact, the longitudinal axes of the 

MDB and the test vehicle are 

perpendicular to each other. Two 50th 

percentile adult male side impact 

dummies (SIDs) are used in the target 

vehicle. They are positioned on the 

struck side of the vehicle, one in the 

front seat with the other directly behind 

in the rear seat. 

The MDB, which simulates the 

striking (i.e., bullet) vehicle, has a mass 

of 1,361 kilograms (kg) (3,000 lb). The 

weight of the MDB and the geometry 

and material properties of the MDB’s 

aluminum honeycomb contact face were 

derived from an adjustment of the 

average properties of the vehicle fleet 

(passenger cars and LTVs) in existence 

at the time of the development of the 

dynamic side impact regulation. 

The test procedures focus on the 

dummy’s chest and pelvis acceleration 

responses, which have been correlated 

with crash and test data regarding the 

conditions that produce serious 

occupant injuries. The instrumented 

dummies must not exhibit chest 

accelerations and pelvic accelerations 

above specified thresholds in order to 

pass the test. The maximum rib and 

spine accelerations measured on the 

chest are averaged into a single metric 

called the Thoracic Trauma Index 

(TTI(d)), which has an 85g limit for 4- 

door vehicles and a 90g limit for 2-door 

vehicles. The pelvic acceleration has a 

130g limit. 

Appendix C—Test Data From NPRM 

The NPRM presented the following 

data from tests of an ES–2re and a SID–

IIsFRG dummy in oblique pole and 

FMVSS No. 214 MDB tests. 

TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS ES–2 DUMMY OR ES–2RE DUMMY

Test vehicle Restraint* HIC36 Rib-def. 

(mm) 

Lower spine 

(g) 

Abd.-force 

(N) 

Pubic-force 

(N) 

Proposed limits .... 1,000 *** 35–44 82 ***2,400 –

2,800 

6,000 

Test Results Using FMVSS No. 214 Seating Position 

1999 Volvo S80** .............................. AC+Th ................. 329 48.7 51.2 1,550 1,130 

2000 Saab 9–5** ............................... Comb ................... 171 49.4 49.0 1,370 1,730 

2004 Honda Accord** ........................ AC+Th ................. 446 30.7 51.7 1,437 2,463 

2004 Toyota Camry** ........................ AC+Th ................. 452 43.4 52.5 1,165 1,849 

Test Results Using FMVSS No. 201 Seating Position 

1999 Nissan Maxima ......................... Comb ................... 5,254 35.7 45.1 1,196 2,368 

1999 Volvo S80 ................................. AC+Th ................. 465 40.7 51.4 1,553 1,700 

2000 Saab 9–5 .................................. Comb ................... 243 49.9 58.3 1,382 2,673 

2001 Saturn L200 .............................. AC ........................ 670 52.3 78.2 1,224 2,377 

2002 Ford Explorer** ......................... AC ........................ 629 43.0 98.4 2,674 2,317 

*Comb. = combination head/chest SIAB; AC = air curtain; Thorax or Th=chest SIAB. 

**Test was conducted with the ES–2re dummy. 

***The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected. 

TABLE 2 TO APPENDIX C.—75-DEGREE POLE TEST RESULTS

[SID–IIsFRG dummy] 

Test vehicle Restraint * HIC36 Lower spine 

(g) 

Pelvis 

(N) 

Proposed limits ............................................... ......................................................................... 1,000 82 5,100 

2003 Toyota Camry (tested April 2003) ......... AC+Th (remotely fired at 11 ms) ................... 512 70 4,580 

2003 Toyota Camry (tested March 2003) ...... AC+Th (bags did not deploy) ......................... 8,706 78 5,725 

2000 Saab 9–5 ............................................... Comb .............................................................. 2,233 67 6,045 

2002 Ford Explorer ......................................... AC (remotely fired at 13 ms) ......................... 4,595 101 7,141

* Comb.=head/chest SIAB; AC=air curtain; Th=chest SIAB 

TABLE 3 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

[ES–2re driver] 

Test vehicle Restraint HPS 

and/or SIAB HIC36 Rib-def. 

(mm) 

Lower spine 

(g) 

Abd.-force 

(N) 

Pubic-symph. 

(N) 

Proposed limits .................................. .............................. 1,000 * 35–44 82 * 2,400–2,800 6,000 

2001 Ford Focus ............................... None .................... 137 36 60 1,648 2,833 

2002 Chevrolet Impala ...................... None .................... 69 46 49 1,225 1,789 

* The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

[ES–2re rear passenger] 

Test vehicle Restraint HPS 

and/or SIAB HIC36 Rib-def. 

(mm) 

Lower spine 

(g) 

Abd.-force 

(N) 

Pubic-symph. 

(N) 

Proposed limits .................................. .............................. 1,000 35–44 82 *2,400–2,800 6,000 

2001 Ford Focus ............................... None .................... 174 20 59 1,121 2,759 

2002 Chevrolet Impala ...................... None .................... 187 12 58 4,409 2,784 

*The agency stated that a particular value within this range would be selected. 

TABLE 5 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

[SID–IIsFRG driver] 

Test vehicle Restraint HPS and/or SIAB HIC36 Lower spine 

(g) Pelvis (N) 

Proposed limits ........................................................................ ................................................ 1,000 82 5,100 

2001 Ford Focus ..................................................................... None ...................................... 181 72 5,621 

2002 Chevrolet Impala ............................................................ None ...................................... 76 52 2,753 

2001 Buick Le Sabre ............................................................... Thorax .................................... 130 67 4,672 

TABLE 6 TO APPENDIX C.—FMVSS NO. 214 MDB TEST RESULTS

[SID–IIsFRG rear passenger] 

Test vehicle Restraint HPS and/or SIAB HIC36 Lower spine 

(g) 

Pelvis 

(N) 

Proposed limits ........................................................................ ................................................ 1,000 82 5,100 

2001 Ford Focus ..................................................................... None ...................................... 526 65 3,997 

2002 Chevrolet Impala ............................................................ None ...................................... 153 89 5,711 

2001 Buick Le Sabre ............................................................... None ...................................... 221 77 4,041 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires. 

49 CFR Part 585 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as 

set forth below. 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 2. Section 571.201 is amended by 

revising S6.2(b)(3), adding S6.2(b)(4), 

and revising S8.18, S8.19 and S8.28, to 

read as follows: 

§ 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant 

protection in interior impact. 

* * * * * 

S6.2 Vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2002 and vehicles 

built in two or more stages 

manufactured after September 1, 2006. 

* * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Except as provided in S6.2(b)(4), 

each vehicle shall, when equipped with 

a dummy test device specified in 49 

CFR part 572, subpart M, and tested as 

specified in S8.16 through S8.28, 

comply with the requirements specified 

in S7 when crashed into a fixed, rigid 

pole of 254 mm in diameter, at any 

velocity between 24 kilometers per hour 

(15 mph) and 29 kilometers per hour (18 

mph). 

(4) Vehicles certified as complying 

with the vehicle-to-pole requirements of 

S9 of 49 CFR 571.214, Side Impact 

Protection, need not comply with the 

pole test requirements specified in 

S6.2(b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

S8.18 Adjustable seats—vehicle to 

pole test. Initially, adjustable seats shall 

be adjusted as specified in S8.3.1 of 

Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214). 

S8.19 Adjustable seat back 

placement—vehicle to pole test. 

Initially, position adjustable seat backs 

in the manner specified in S8.3.1 of 

Standard 214 (49 CFR 571.214). 

* * * * * 

S8.28 Positioning procedure for the 

Part 572 Subpart M test dummy—

vehicle to pole test. The part 572, 

subpart M, test dummy is initially 

positioned in the front outboard seating 

position on the struck side of the 

vehicle in accordance with the 

provisions of S12.1 of Standard 214 (49 

CFR 571.214), and the vehicle seat is 

positioned as specified in S8.3.1 of that 

standard. The position of the dummy is 

then measured as follows. Locate the 

horizontal plane passing through the 

dummy head center of gravity. Identify 

the rearmost point on the dummy head 

in that plane. Construct a line in the 

plane that contains the rearward point 

of the front door daylight opening and 

is perpendicular to the longitudinal 

vehicle centerline. Measure the 

longitudinal distance between the 

rearmost point on the dummy head and 

this line. If this distance is less than 50 

mm (2 inches) or the point is not 

forward of the line, then the seat and/ 

or dummy positions is adjusted as 

follows. First, the seat back angle is 

adjusted, a maximum of 5 degrees, until 

a 50 mm (2 inches) distance is achieved. 

If this is not sufficient to produce the 50 

mm (2 inches) distance, the seat is 

moved forward until the 50 mm (2 

inches) distance is achieved or until the 

knees of the dummy contact the 

dashboard or knee bolster, whichever 

comes first. If the required distance 

cannot be achieved through movement 

of the seat, the seat back angle is 

adjusted even further forward until the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51957 

50 mm (2 inches) distance is obtained 

or until the seat back is in its fully 

upright locking position. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 571.214 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 571.214 Standard No. 214; Side impact 

protection. 

S1 Scope and purpose. 

(a) Scope. This standard specifies 

performance requirements for protection 

of occupants in side impacts. 

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this 

standard is to reduce the risk of serious 

and fatal injury to occupants of 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks and buses in side 

impacts by specifying strength 

requirements for side doors, limiting the 

forces, deflections and accelerations 

measured on anthropomorphic 

dummies in test crashes, and by other 

means. 

S2 Applicability. This standard 

applies to passenger cars, and to 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) 

(10,000 pounds (lb)) or less, except for 

walk-in vans, or otherwise specified. 

S3 Definitions. 

Contoured means, with respect to a 

door, that the lower portion of its front 

or rear edge is curved upward, typically 

to conform to a wheel well. 

Double side doors means a pair of 

hinged doors with the lock and latch 

mechanisms located where the door lips 

overlap. 

Limited line manufacturer means a 

manufacturer that sells three or fewer 

carlines, as that term is defined in 49 

CFR 585.4, in the United States during 

a production year. 

Lowered floor means the replacement 

floor on a motor vehicle whose original 

floor has been removed, in part or in 

total, and replaced by a floor that is 

lower than the original floor. 

Modified roof means the replacement 

roof on a motor vehicle whose original 

roof has been removed, in part or in 

total. 

Raised roof is used as defined in 

paragraph S4 of 49 CFR 571.216. 

Walk-in van means a special cargo/ 

mail delivery vehicle that has only one 

designated seating position. That 

designated seating position must be 

forward facing and for use only by the 

driver. The vehicle usually has a thin 

and light sliding (or folding) side door 

for easy operation and a high roof 

clearance that a person of medium 

stature can enter the passenger 

compartment area in an up-right 

position. 

S4 Requirements. Subject to the 

exceptions of S5—

(a) Passenger cars. Passenger cars 

must meet the requirements set forth in 

S6 (door crush resistance), S7 (moving 

deformable barrier test), and S9 

(vehicle-to-pole test), subject to the 

phased-in application of S7 and S9. 

(b) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 

kg or less (6,000 lb or less). 

Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 

and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kg or 

less (6,000 lb or less) must meet the 

requirements set forth in S6 (door crush 

resistance), S7 (moving deformable 

barrier test), and S9 (vehicle-to-pole 

test), subject to the phased-in 

application of S7 and S9. 

(c) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks and buses with a GVWR greater 

than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb). Multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks and buses 

with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kg 

(6,000 lb) must meet the requirements 

set forth in S6 (door crush resistance) 

and S9 (vehicle-to-pole test), subject to 

the phased-in application of S9. 

S5 General exclusions. 

(a) Exclusions from S6 (door crush 

resistance). A vehicle need not meet the 

requirements of S6 (door crush 

resistance) for—

(1) Any side door located so that no 

point on a ten-inch horizontal 

longitudinal line passing through and 

bisected by the H–point of a manikin 

placed in any seat, with the seat 

adjusted to any position and the seat 

back adjusted as specified in S8.4, falls 

within the transverse, horizontal 

projection of the door’s opening, 

(2) Any side door located so that no 

point on a ten-inch horizontal 

longitudinal line passing through and 

bisected by the H–point of a manikin 

placed in any seat recommended by the 

manufacturer for installation in a 

location for which seat anchorage 

hardware is provided, with the seat 

adjusted to any position and the seat 

back adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls 

within the transverse, horizontal 

projection of the door’s opening, 

(3) Any side door located so that a 

portion of a seat, with the seat adjusted 

to any position and the seat back 

adjusted as specified in S8.3, falls 

within the transverse, horizontal 

projection of the door’s opening, but a 

longitudinal vertical plane tangent to 

the outboard side of the seat cushion is 

more than 254 mm (10 inches) from the 

innermost point on the inside surface of 

the door at a height between the H–

point and shoulder reference point (as 

shown in Figure 1 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 (49 

CFR 571.210)) and longitudinally 

between the front edge of the cushion 

with the seat adjusted to its 

forwardmost position and the rear edge 

of the cushion with the seat adjusted to 

its rearmost position. 

(4) Any side door that is designed to 

be easily attached to or removed (e.g., 

using simple hand tools such as pliers 

and/or a screwdriver) from a motor 

vehicle manufactured for operation 

without doors. 

(b) Exclusions from S7 (moving 

deformable barrier test). The following 

vehicles are excluded from S7 (moving 

deformable barrier test): 

(1) Motor homes, ambulances and 

other emergency rescue/medical 

vehicles (including vehicles with firefighting equipment), vehicles equipped 

with wheelchair lifts, and vehicles 

which have no doors or exclusively 

have doors that are designed to be easily 

attached or removed so the vehicle can 

be operated without doors. 

(2) Passenger cars with a wheelbase 

greater than 130 inches need not meet 

the requirements of S7 as applied to the 

rear seat. 

(3) Passenger cars, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, trucks and buses 

need not meet the requirements of S7 

(moving deformable barrier test) as 

applied to the rear seat for side-facing 

rear seats and for rear seating areas that 

are so small that a Part 572 Subpart V 

dummy representing a 5th percentile 

adult female cannot be accommodated 

according to the positioning procedure 

specified in S12.3.4 of this standard. 

(4) Multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks and buses with a GVWR of more 

than 2,722 kg (6,000 lb) need not meet 

the requirements of S7 (moving 

deformable barrier test). 

(c) Exclusions from S9 (vehicle-topole test). The following vehicles are 

excluded from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test) 

(wholly or in limited part, as set forth 

below): 

(1) Motor homes; 

(2) Ambulances and other emergency 

rescue/medical vehicles (including 

vehicles with fire-fighting equipment) 

except police cars; 

(3) Vehicles with a lowered floor or 

raised or modified roof and vehicles that 

have had the original roof rails removed 

and not replaced; 

(4) Vehicles in which the seat for the 

driver or right front passenger has been 

removed and wheelchair restraints 

installed in place of the seat are 

excluded from meeting the vehicle-topole test at that position; and 

(5) Vehicles that have no doors, or 

exclusively have doors that are designed 

to be easily attached or removed so that 

the vehicle can be operated without 

doors. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51958 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

S6 Door Crush Resistance 

Requirements. Except as provided in 

section S5, each vehicle shall be able to 

meet the requirements of either, at the 

manufacturer’s option, S6.1 or S6.2, 

when any of its side doors that can be 

used for occupant egress is tested 

according to procedures described in 

S6.3 of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S6.1 With any seats that may affect 

load upon or deflection of the side of 

the vehicle removed from the vehicle, 

each vehicle must be able to meet the 

requirements of S6.1.1 through S6.1.3. 

S6.1.1 Initial crush resistance. The 

initial crush resistance shall not be less 

than 10,000 N (2,250 lb). 

S6.1.2 Intermediate crush resistance. 

The intermediate crush resistance shall 

not be less than 1,557 N (3,500 lb). 

S6.1.3 Peak crush resistance. The 

peak crush resistance shall not be less 

than two times the curb weight of the 

vehicle or 3,114 N (7,000 lb), whichever 

is less. 

S6.2 With seats installed in the 

vehicle, and located in any horizontal or 

vertical position to which they can be 

adjusted and at any seat back angle to 

which they can be adjusted, each 

vehicle must be able to meet the 

requirements of S6.2.1 through S6.2.3. 

S6.2.1 Initial crush resistance. The 

initial crush resistance shall not be less 

than 10,000 N (2,250 lb). 

S6.2.2 Intermediate crush resistance. 

The intermediate crush resistance shall 

not be less than 1,946 N (4,375 lb). 

S6.2.3 Peak crush resistance. The 

peak crush resistance shall not be less 

than three and one half times the curb 

weight of the vehicle or 5,338 N (12,000 

lb), whichever is less. 

S6.3 Test procedures for door crush 

resistance. The following procedures 

apply to determining compliance with 

S6.1 and S6.2 of S6, Door crush 

resistance requirements. 

(a) Place side windows in their 

uppermost position and all doors in 

locked position. Place the sill of the side 

of the vehicle opposite to the side being 

tested against a rigid unyielding vertical 

surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in 

position by means of tiedown 

attachments located at or forward of the 

front wheel centerline and at or 

rearward of the rear wheel centerline. 

(b) Prepare a loading device 

consisting of a rigid steel cylinder or 

semi-cylinder 305 mm (12 inches) in 

diameter with an edge radius of 13 mm 

(1⁄2 inch). The length of the loading 

device shall be such that—

(1) For doors with windows, the top 

surface of the loading device is at least 

13 mm (1⁄2 inch) above the bottom edge 

of the door window opening but not of 

a length that will cause contact with any 

structure above the bottom edge of the 

door window opening during the test. 

(2) For doors without windows, the 

top surface of the loading device is at 

the same height above the ground as 

when the loading device is positioned 

in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section for purposes of testing a 

front door with windows on the same 

vehicle. 

(c) Locate the loading device as 

shown in Figure 1 (side view) of this 

section so that—

(1) Its longitudinal axis is vertical. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, its 

longitudinal axis is laterally opposite 

the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn 

across the outer surface of the door 127 

mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of 

the door, exclusive of any decorative or 

protective molding that is not 

permanently affixed to the door panel. 

(i) For contoured doors on trucks, 

buses, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, if the length of the 

horizontal line specified in this 

paragraph (c)(2) is not equal to or greater 

than 559 mm (22 inches), the line is 

moved vertically up the side of the door 

to the point at which the line is 559 mm 

(22 inches) long. The longitudinal axis 

of the loading device is then located 

laterally opposite the midpoint of that 

line. 

(ii) For double side doors on trucks, 

buses, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, its longitudinal axis 

is laterally opposite the midpoint of a 

horizontal line drawn across the outer 

surface of the double door span, 127 

mm (5 inches) above the lowest point on 

the doors, exclusive of any decorative or 

protective molding that is not 

permanently affixed to the door panel. 

(3) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, its 

bottom surface is in the same horizontal 

plane as the horizontal line drawn 

across the outer surface of the door 127 

mm (5 inches) above the lowest point of 

the door, exclusive of any decorative or 

protective molding that is not 

permanently affixed to the door panel. 

(i) For contoured doors on trucks, 

buses, and multipurpose passenger 

vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg 

(10,000 lb) or less, its bottom surface is 

in the lowest horizontal plane such that 

every point on the lateral projection of 

the bottom surface of the device on the 

door is at least 127 mm (5 inches), 

horizontally and vertically, from any 

edge of the door panel, exclusive of any 

decorative or protective molding that is 

not permanently affixed to the door 

panel. 

(ii) For double side doors, its bottom 

surface is in the same horizontal plane 

as a horizontal line drawn across the 

outer surface of the double door span, 

127 mm (5 inches) above the lowest 

point of the doors, exclusive of any 

decorative or protective molding that is 

not permanently affixed to the door 

panel. 

(d) Using the loading device, apply a 

load to the outer surface of the door in 

an inboard direction normal to a vertical 

plane along the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline. Apply the load continuously 

such that the loading device travel rate 

does not exceed 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) per 

second until the loading device travels 

457 mm (18 inches). Guide the loading 

device to prevent it from being rotated 

or displaced from its direction of travel. 

The test is completed within 120 

seconds. 

(e) Record applied load versus 

displacement of the loading device, 

either continuously or in increments of 

not more than 25.4 mm (1 inch) or 91 

kg (200 pounds) for the entire crush 

distance of 457 mm (18 inches). 

(f) Determine the initial crush 

resistance, intermediate crush 

resistance, and peak crush resistance as 

follows: 

(1) From the results recorded in 

paragraph (e) of this section, plot a 

curve of load versus displacement and 

obtain the integral of the applied load 

with respect to the crush distances 

specified in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of 

this section. These quantities, expressed 

in mm-kN (inch-pounds) and divided by 

the specified crush distances, represent 

the average forces in kN (pounds) 

required to deflect the door those 

distances. 

(2) The initial crush resistance is the 

average force required to deform the 

door over the initial 152 mm (6 inches) 

of crush. 

(3) The intermediate crush resistance 

is the average force required to deform 

the door over the initial 305 mm (12 

inches) of crush. 

(4) The peak crush resistance is the 

largest force recorded over the entire 

457 mm (18-inch) crush distance. 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51959 

S7 Moving Deformable Barrier 

(MDB) Requirements. Except as 

provided in section S5, when tested 

under the conditions of S8 each vehicle 

shall meet S7.3 and the following 

requirements in a 53 ± 1.0 km/h (33.5 

mph) impact in which the vehicle is 

struck on either side by a moving 

deformable barrier. 

S7.1 MDB test with SID. For vehicles 

manufactured before September 1, 2009, 

the following requirements must be met. 

The following requirements also apply 

to vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009 that are not part of 

the percentage of a manufacturer’s 

production meeting the MDB test with 

advanced test dummies (S7.2 of this 

section) or are otherwise excluded from 

the phase-in requirements of S7.2. 

(Vehicles manufactured before 

September 1, 2009 may meet S7.2, at the 

manufacturer’s option.) 

S7.1.1 The test dummy specified in 

49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F (SID) is 

placed in the front and rear outboard 

seating positions on the struck side of 

the vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 

of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S7.1.2 When using the Part 572 

Subpart F dummy (SID), the following 

performance requirements must be met. 

(a) Thorax. The Thoracic Trauma 

Index (TTI(d)) shall not exceed: 

(1) 85 g for a passenger car with four 

side doors, and for any multipurpose 

passenger vehicle, truck, or bus; and, 

(2) 90 g for a passenger car with two 

side doors, when calculated in 

accordance with the following formula: 

TI(d) = 1⁄2(GR + GLS) 

Where the term ‘‘GR’’ is the greater of 

the peak accelerations of either the 

upper or lower rib, expressed in g’s and 

the term ‘‘GLS’’ is the lower spine (T12) 

peak acceleration, expressed in g’s. The 

peak acceleration values are obtained in 

accordance with the procedure specified 

in S11.5. 

(b) Pelvis. The peak lateral 

acceleration of the pelvis, as measured 

in accordance with S11.5, shall not 

exceed 130 g’s. 

S7.2 MDB test with advanced test 

dummies. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER11SE07.000</GPH>
51960 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

S7.2.1 Vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2009 to August 31, 

2012. 

(a) Except as provided in S7.2.4 of 

this section, for vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2009 to August 

31, 2012, a percentage of each 

manufacturer’s production, as specified 

in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, and S13.1.3, shall 

meet the requirements of S7.2.5 and 

S7.2.6 when tested with the test dummy 

specified in those sections. Vehicles 

manufactured before September 1, 2012 

may be certified as meeting the 

requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6. 

(b) For vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2009 that are not part 

of the percentage of a manufacturer’s 

production meeting S7.2.1 of this 

section, the requirements of S7.1 of this 

section must be met. 

(c) Place the Subpart U ES–2re 50th 

percentile male dummy in the front seat 

and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile 

female test dummy in the rear seat. The 

test dummies are placed and positioned 

in the front and rear outboard seating 

positions on the struck side of the 

vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of 

this standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S7.2.2 Vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2012. 

(a) Subject to S7.2.4 of this section, 

each vehicle manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2012 must meet the 

requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when 

tested with the test dummy specified in 

those sections. 

(b) Place the Subpart U ES–2re 50th 

percentile male dummy in the front seat 

and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile 

female test dummy in the rear seat. The 

test dummies are placed and positioned 

in the front and rear outboard seating 

positions on the struck side of the 

vehicle, as specified in S11 and S12 of 

this standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S7.2.3 [Reserved] 

S7.2.4 Exceptions from the MDB 

phase-in; special allowances. 

(a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2012 by an 

original vehicle manufacturer that 

produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 

vehicles annually for sale in the United 

States are not subject to S7.2.1 of this 

section (but are subject to S7.2.2); 

(2) Vehicles that are manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2012 by a limited 

line manufacturer are not subject to 

S7.2.1 of this section (but are subject to 

S7.2.2). 

(b) Vehicles that are altered (within 

the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before 

September 1, 2013 after having been 

previously certified in accordance with 

part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages 

before September 1, 2013, are not 

subject to S7.2.1. Vehicles that are 

altered on or after September 1, 2013, 

and vehicles that are manufactured in 

two or more stages on or after 

September 1, 2013, must meet the 

requirements of S7.2.5 and S7.2.6, when 

tested with the test dummy specified in 

those sections. Place the Subpart U ES–

2re 50th percentile male dummy in the 

front seat and the Subpart V SID–IIs 5th 

percentile female test dummy in the rear 

seat. The test dummies are placed and 

positioned in the front and rear 

outboard seating positions on the struck 

side of the vehicle, as specified in S11 

and S12 of this standard (49 CFR 

571.214). 

S7.2.5 Dynamic performance 

requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 

U dummy (ES–2re 50th percentile male) 

dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572 

Subpart U ES–2re dummy specified in 

S11 with measurements in accordance 

with S11.5. The following criteria shall 

be met: 

(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 

when calculated in accordance with the 

following formula: 

HIC

t t

adt t t

t

t

= − − ∫ [

( ) ]( ) 1 .

2 1

2 5

2 1

1

2

Where the term a is the resultant head 

acceleration at the center of gravity of 

the dummy head expressed as a 

multiple of g (the acceleration of 

gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two 

points in time during the impact which 

are separated by not more than a 36 

millisecond time interval and where t1 

is less than t2. 

(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of 

the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall 

not exceed 44 mm (1.65 inches). 

(c) Force measurements. 

(1) The sum of the front, middle and 

rear abdominal forces, shall not exceed 

2,500 N (562 lb). 

(2) The pubic symphysis force shall 

not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 pounds). 

S7.2.6 Dynamic performance 

requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 

V SID–IIs (5th percentile female) 

dummy. Use the 49 CFR Part 572 

Subpart V SID–IIs 5th percentile female 

dummy specified in S11 with 

measurements in accordance with 

S11.5. The following criteria shall be 

met: 

(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 

when calculated in accordance with the 

following formula: 

HIC

t t

adt t t

t

t

= − − ∫ [

( ) ]( ) 1 .

2 1

2 5

2 1

1

2

Where the term a is the resultant head 

acceleration expressed as a multiple of 

g (the acceleration of gravity), and t1 

and t2 are any two points in time during 

the impact which are separated by not 

more than a 36 millisecond time 

interval. 

(b) The resultant lower spine 

acceleration shall not exceed 82 g. 

(c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac 

pelvic forces shall not exceed 5,525 N. 

S7.3 Door opening. 

(a) Any side door that is struck by the 

moving deformable barrier shall not 

separate totally from the vehicle. 

(b) Any door (including a rear 

hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck 

by the moving deformable barrier shall 

meet the following requirements: 

(1) The door shall not disengage from 

the latched position; 

(2) The latch shall not separate from 

the striker, and the hinge components 

shall not separate from each other or 

from their attachment to the vehicle. 

(3) Neither the latch nor the hinge 

systems of the door shall pull out of 

their anchorages. 

S8 Test conditions for determining 

compliance with moving deformable 

barrier requirements. General test 

conditions for determining compliance 

with the moving deformable barrier test 

are specified below. Additional 

specifications may also be found in S12 

of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S8.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is 

loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, 

plus 136 kg (300 pounds) or its rated 

cargo and luggage capacity (whichever 

is less), secured in the luggage or loadcarrying area, plus the weight of the 

necessary anthropomorphic test 

dummies. Any added test equipment is 

located away from impact areas in 

secure places in the vehicle. The 

vehicle’s fuel system is filled in 

accordance with the following 

procedure. With the test vehicle on a 

level surface, pump the fuel from the 

vehicle’s fuel tank and then operate the 

engine until it stops. Then, add 

Stoddard solvent to the test vehicle’s 

fuel tank in an amount that is equal to 

not less than 92 percent and not more 

than 94 percent of the fuel tank’s usable 

capacity stated by the vehicle’s 

manufacturer. In addition, add the 

amount of Stoddard solvent needed to 

fill the entire fuel system from the fuel 

tank through the engine’s induction 

system. 

S8.2 Vehicle test attitude. Determine 

the distance between a level surface and 

a standard reference point on the test 

vehicle’s body, directly above each 

wheel opening, when the vehicle is in 

its ‘‘as delivered’’ condition. The ‘‘as 

delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as 

received at the test site, filled to 100 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER11SE07.003</MATH> ER11SE07.004</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51961 

percent of all fluid capacities and with 

all tires inflated to the manufacturer’s 

specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire 

placard. Determine the distance 

between the same level surface and the 

same standard reference points in the 

vehicle’s ‘‘fully loaded condition.’’ The 

‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test 

vehicle loaded in accordance with S8.1 

of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The 

load placed in the cargo area is centered 

over the longitudinal centerline of the 

vehicle. The pretest vehicle attitude is 

equal to either the as delivered or fully 

loaded attitude or between the as 

delivered attitude and the fully loaded 

attitude, +/¥10 mm. 

S8.3 Adjustable seats. 

S8.3.1 50th Percentile Male Dummy 

In Front Seats. 

S8.3.1.1 Lumbar support 

adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 

supports so that the lumbar support is 

in its lowest, retracted or deflated 

adjustment position. 

S8.3.1.2 Other seat adjustments. 

Position any adjustable parts of the seat 

that provide additional support so that 

they are in the lowest or non-deployed 

adjustment position. Position any 

adjustable head restraint in the highest 

and most forward position. Place 

adjustable seat backs in the 

manufacturer’s nominal design riding 

position in the manner specified by the 

manufacturer. If the position is not 

specified, set the seat back at the first 

detent rearward of 25° from the vertical. 

S8.3.1.3 Seat position adjustment. If 

the passenger seat does not adjust 

independently of the driver seat, the 

driver seat shall control the final 

position of the passenger seat. 

S8.3.1.3.1 Using only the controls 

that primarily move the seat and seat 

cushion independent of the seat back in 

the fore and aft directions, move the seat 

cushion reference point (SCRP) to the 

rearmost position. Using any part of any 

control, other than those just used, 

determine the full range of angles of the 

seat cushion reference line and set the 

seat cushion reference line to the 

middle of the range. Using any part of 

any control other than those that 

primarily move the seat or seat cushion 

fore and aft, while maintaining the seat 

cushion reference line angle, place the 

SCRP to its lowest position. 

S8.3.1.3.2 Using only the control 

that primarily moves the seat fore and 

aft, move the seat cushion reference 

point to the mid travel position. If an 

adjustment position does not exist 

midway between the forwardmost and 

rearmost positions, the closest 

adjustment position to the rear of the 

midpoint is used. 

S8.3.1.3.3 If the seat or seat cushion 

height is adjustable, other than by the 

controls that primarily move the seat or 

seat cushion fore and aft, set the height 

of the seat cushion reference point to 

the minimum height, with the seat 

cushion reference line angle set as 

closely as possible to the angle 

determined in S8.3.1.3.1. Mark location 

of the seat for future reference. 

S8.3.2 [Reserved] 

S8.3.3 5th Percentile Female 

Dummy in Second Row Seat. 

S8.3.3.1 Lumbar support 

adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 

supports so that the lumbar support is 

in its lowest, retracted or deflated 

adjustment position. 

S8.3.3.2 Other seat adjustments. 

Position any adjustable parts of the seat 

that provide additional support so that 

they are in the lowest or non-deployed 

adjustment position. Position any 

adjustable head restraint in the lowest 

and most forward position. Place 

adjustable seat backs in the 

manufacturer’s nominal design riding 

position in the manner specified by the 

manufacturer. If the position is not 

specified, set the seat back at the first 

detent rearward of 25° from the vertical. 

S8.3.3.3 Seat position adjustment. 

Using only the controls that primarily 

move the seat and seat cushion 

independent of the seat back in the fore 

and aft directions, move the seat 

cushion reference point (SCRP) to the 

rearmost position. Using any part of any 

control, other than those just used, 

determine the full range of angles of the 

seat cushion reference line and set the 

seat cushion reference line to the 

middle of the range. Using any part of 

any control other than those that 

primarily move the seat or seat cushion 

fore and aft, while maintaining the seat 

cushion reference line angle, place the 

SCRP to its lowest position. Mark 

location of the seat for future reference. 

S8.4 Adjustable steering wheel. 

Adjustable steering controls are adjusted 

so that the steering wheel hub is at the 

geometric center of the locus it 

describes when it is moved through its 

full range of driving positions. If there 

is no setting detent in the mid-position, 

lower the steering wheel to the detent 

just below the mid-position. If the 

steering column is telescoping, place the 

steering column in the mid-position. If 

there is no mid-position, move the 

steering wheel rearward one position 

from the mid-position. 

S8.5 Windows and sunroofs. 

Movable vehicle windows and vents are 

placed in the fully closed position on 

the struck side of the vehicle. Any 

sunroof shall be placed in the fully 

closed position. 

S8.6 Convertible tops. Convertibles 

and open-body type vehicles have the 

top, if any, in place in the closed 

passenger compartment configuration. 

S8.7 Doors. Doors, including any 

rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully 

closed and latched but not locked. 

S8.8 Transmission and brake 

engagement. For a vehicle equipped 

with a manual transmission, the 

transmission is placed in second gear. 

For a vehicle equipped with an 

automatic transmission, the 

transmission is placed in neutral. For all 

vehicles, the parking brake is engaged. 

S8.9 Moving deformable barrier. The 

moving deformable barrier conforms to 

the dimensions shown in Figure 2 and 

specified in 49 CFR Part 587. 

S8.10 Impact configuration. The test 

vehicle (vehicle A in Figure 3) is 

stationary. The line of forward motion 

of the moving deformable barrier 

(vehicle B in Figure 3) forms an angle 

of 63 degrees with the centerline of the 

test vehicle. The longitudinal centerline 

of the moving deformable barrier is 

perpendicular to the longitudinal 

centerline of the test vehicle when the 

barrier strikes the test vehicle. In a test 

in which the test vehicle is to be struck 

on its left (right) side: All wheels of the 

moving deformable barrier are 

positioned at an angle of 27 ± 1 degrees 

to the right (left) of the centerline of the 

moving deformable barrier; and the left 

(right) forward edge of the moving 

deformable barrier is aligned so that a 

longitudinal plane tangent to that side 

passes through the impact reference line 

within a tolerance of ± 51 mm (2 inches) 

when the barrier strikes the test vehicle. 

S8.11 Impact reference line. Place a 

vertical reference line at the location 

described below on the side of the 

vehicle that will be struck by the 

moving deformable barrier. 

S8.11.1 Passenger cars. 

(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 

2,896 mm (114 inches) or less, 940 mm 

(37 inches) forward of the center of the 

vehicle’s wheelbase. 

(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase 

greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 508 

mm (20 inches) rearward of the 

centerline of the vehicle’s front axle. 

S8.11.2 Multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks and buses. 

(a) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 

2,489 mm (98 inches) or less, 305 mm 

(12 inches) rearward of the centerline of 

the vehicle’s front axle, except as 

otherwise specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(b) For vehicles with a wheelbase of 

greater than 2,489 mm (98 inches) but 

not greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 

940 mm (37 inches) forward of the 

center of the vehicle’s wheelbase, except 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51962 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

as otherwise specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(c) For vehicles with a wheelbase 

greater than 2,896 mm (114 inches), 508 

mm (20 inches) rearward of the 

centerline of the vehicle’s front axle, 

except as otherwise specified in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(d) At the manufacturer’s option, for 

different wheelbase versions of the same 

model vehicle, the impact reference line 

may be located by the following: 

(1) Select the shortest wheelbase 

vehicle of the different wheelbase 

versions of the same model and locate 

on it the impact reference line at the 

location described in (a), (b) or (c) of 

this section, as appropriate; 

(2) Measure the distance between the 

seating reference point (SgRP) and the 

impact reference line; 

(3) Maintain the same distance 

between the SgRP and the impact 

reference line for the version being 

tested as that between the SgRP and the 

impact reference line for the shortest 

wheelbase version of the model. 

(e) For the compliance test, the impact 

reference line will be located using the 

procedure used by the manufacturer as 

the basis for its certification of 

compliance with the requirements of 

this standard. If the manufacturer did 

not use any of the procedures in this 

section, or does not specify a procedure 

when asked by the agency, the agency 

may locate the impact reference line 

using either procedure. 

S8.12 Anthropomorphic test 

dummies. The anthropomorphic test 

dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s 

performance in the moving deformable 

barrier test conform to the requirements 

of S11 and are positioned as described 

in S12 of this standard (49 CFR 

571.214). 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51963 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER11SE07.001</GPH>
51964 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

S9 Vehicle-to-Pole Requirements. 

S9.1 Except as provided in S5, when 

tested under the conditions of S10: 

S9.1.1 Except as provided in S9.1.3 

of this section, for vehicles 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2009 to August 31, 2012, a percentage 

of each manufacturer’s production, as 

specified in S13.1.1, S13.1.2, and 

S13.1.3, shall meet the requirements of 

S9.2.1, S9.2.2, and S9.2.3 when tested 

under the conditions of S10 into a fixed, 

rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in 

diameter, at any velocity up to and 

including 32 km/h (20 mph). Vehicles 

manufactured before September 1, 2012 

that are not subject to the phase-in may 

be certified as meeting the requirements 

specified in this section. 

S9.1.2 Except as provided in S9.1.3 

of this section, each vehicle 

manufactured on or after September 1, 

2012, must meet the requirements of 

S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and S9.2.3, when tested 

under the conditions specified in S10 

into a fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 

inches) in diameter, at any speed up to 

and including 32 km/h (20 mph). 

S9.1.3 Exceptions from the phase-in; 

special allowances. 

(a)(1) Vehicles that are manufactured 

by an original vehicle manufacturer that 

produces or assembles fewer than 5,000 

vehicles annually for sale in the United 

States are not subject to S9.1.1 of this 

section (but are subject to S9.1.2); 

(2) Vehicles that are manufactured by 

a limited line manufacturer are not 

subject to S9.1.1 of this section (but are 

subject to S9.1.2). 

(b) Vehicles that are altered (within 

the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) before 

September 1, 2013 after having been 

previously certified in accordance with 

part 567 of this chapter, and vehicles 

manufactured in two or more stages 

before September 1, 2013, are not 

subject to S9.1.1. Vehicles that are 

altered on or after September 1, 2013, 

and vehicles that are manufactured in 

two or more stages on or after 

September 1, 2013, must meet the 

requirements of S9, when tested under 

the conditions specified in S10 into a 

fixed, rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) 

in diameter, at any speed up to and 

including 32 km/h (20 mph). 

(c) Vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating greater than 3,855 kg 

(8,500 lb) manufactured before 

September 1, 2013 are not subject to 

S9.1.1 or S9.1.2 of this section. These 

vehicles may be voluntarily certified to 

meet the pole test requirements prior to 

September 1, 2013. Vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating greater than 

3,855 kg (8,500 lb) manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2013 must meet the 

requirements of S9.2.1, S9.2.2 and 

S9.2.3, when tested under the 

conditions specified in S10 into a fixed, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER11SE07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51965 

rigid pole of 254 mm (10 inches) in 

diameter, at any speed up to and 

including 32 km/h (20 mph). 

S9.2 Requirements. Each vehicle 

shall meet these vehicle-to-pole test 

requirements when tested under the 

conditions of S10 of this standard. At 

NHTSA’s option, either the 50th 

percentile adult male test dummy (ES–

2re dummy, 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U) 

or the 5th percentile adult female test 

dummy (SID–IIs, 49 CFR Part 572 

Subpart V) shall be used in the test. At 

NHTSA’s option, either front outboard 

seating position shall be tested. The 

vehicle shall meet the specific 

requirements at all front outboard 

seating positions. 

S9.2.1 Dynamic performance 

requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 

U (ES–2re 50th percentile male) dummy. 

When using the ES–2re Part 572 Subpart 

U dummy, use the specifications of S11 

of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). When 

using the dummy, the following 

performance requirements must be met 

using measurements in accordance with 

S11.5. 

(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 

when calculated in accordance with the 

following formula: 

HIC

t t

adt t t

t

t

= − − ∫ [

( ) ]( ) 1 .

2 1

2 5

2 1

1

2

Where the term a is the resultant head 

acceleration at the center of gravity of 

the dummy head expressed as a 

multiple of g (the acceleration of 

gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two 

points in time during the impact which 

are separated by not more than a 36 

millisecond time interval and where t1 

is less than t2. 

(b) Thorax. The deflection of any of 

the upper, middle, and lower ribs, shall 

not exceed 44 mm (1.65 inches). 

(c) Force measurements. 

(1) The sum of the front, middle and 

rear abdominal forces, shall not exceed 

2,500 N (562 pounds). 

(2) The pubic symphysis force shall 

not exceed 6,000 N (1,350 pounds). 

S9.2.2 Dynamic performance 

requirements using the Part 572 Subpart 

V SID–IIs (5th percentile female) 

dummy. When using the SID–IIs Part 

572 Subpart V dummy, use the 

specifications of S11 of this standard (49 

CFR 571.214). When using the dummy, 

the following performance requirements 

must be met. 

(a) The HIC shall not exceed 1000 

when calculated in accordance with the 

following formula: 

HIC

t t

adt t t

t

t

= − − ∫ [

( ) ]( ) 1 .

2 1

2 5

2 1

1

2

Where the term a is the resultant head 

acceleration at the center of gravity of 

the dummy head expressed as a 

multiple of g (the acceleration of 

gravity), and t1 and t2 are any two 

points in time during the impact which 

are separated by not more than a 36 

millisecond time interval and where t1 

is less than t2. 

(b) Resultant lower spine acceleration 

must not exceed 82 g. 

(c) The sum of the acetabular and iliac 

pelvic forces must not exceed 5,525 N. 

S9.2.3 Door opening. 

(a) Any side door that is struck by the 

pole shall not separate totally from the 

vehicle. 

(b) Any door (including a rear 

hatchback or tailgate) that is not struck 

by the pole shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) The door shall not disengage from 

the latched position; and 

(2) The latch shall not separate from 

the striker, and the hinge components 

shall not separate from each other or 

from their attachment to the vehicle. 

(3) Neither the latch nor the hinge 

systems of the door shall pull out of 

their anchorages. 

S10. General test conditions for 

determining compliance with vehicle-topole requirements. General test 

conditions for determining compliance 

with the vehicle-to-pole test are 

specified below and in S12 of this 

standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S10.1 Test weight. Each vehicle is 

loaded as specified in S8.1 of this 

standard (49 CFR 571.214). 

S10.2 Vehicle test attitude. When 

the vehicle is in its ‘‘as delivered,’’

‘‘fully loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’

condition, locate the vehicle on a flat, 

horizontal surface to determine the 

vehicle attitude. Use the same level 

surface or reference plane and the same 

standard points on the test vehicle when 

determining the ‘‘as delivered,’’ ‘‘fully 

loaded’’ and ‘‘as tested’’ conditions. 

Measure the angles relative to a 

horizontal plane, front-to-rear and from 

left-to-right for the ‘‘as delivered,’’

‘‘fully loaded,’’ and ‘‘as tested’’

conditions. The front-to-rear angle 

(pitch) is measured along a fixed 

reference on the driver’s and front 

passenger’s door sill. Mark where the 

angles are taken on the door sill. The 

left to right angle (roll) is measured 

along a fixed reference point at the front 

and rear of the vehicle at the vehicle 

longitudinal center plane. Mark where 

the angles are measured. The ‘‘as 

delivered’’ condition is the vehicle as 

received at the test site, with 100 

percent of all fluid capacities and all 

tires inflated to the manufacturer’s 

specifications listed on the vehicle’s tire 

placard. When the vehicle is in its 

‘‘fully loaded’’ condition, measure the 

angle between the driver’s door sill and 

the horizontal, at the same place the ‘‘as 

delivered’’ angle was measured. The 

‘‘fully loaded condition’’ is the test 

vehicle loaded in accordance with S8.1 

of this standard (49 CFR 571.214). The 

load placed in the cargo area is centered 

over the longitudinal centerline of the 

vehicle. The vehicle ‘‘as tested’’ pitch 

and roll angles are between the ‘‘as 

delivered’’ and ‘‘fully loaded’’

condition, inclusive. 

S10.3 Adjustable seats. 

S10.3.1 Driver and front passenger 

seat set-up for 50th percentile male 

dummy. The driver and front passenger 

seats are set up as specified in S8.3.1 of 

this standard, 49 CFR 571.214. 

S10.3.2. Driver and front passenger 

seat set-up for 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart 

V 5th percentile female dummy. 

S10.3.2.1 Lumbar support 

adjustment. Position adjustable lumbar 

supports so that the lumbar support is 

in its lowest, retracted or deflated 

adjustment position. 

S10.3.2.2 Other seat adjustments. 

Position any adjustable parts of the seat 

that provide additional support so that 

they are in the lowest or non-deployed 

adjustment position. Position any 

adjustable head restraint in the lowest 

and most forward position. Place 

adjustable seat backs in the 

manufacturer’s nominal design riding 

position in the manner specified by the 

manufacturer. If the position is not 

specified, set the seat back at the first 

detent rearward of 25° from the vertical. 

S10.3.2.3 Seat position adjustment. 

If the passenger seat does not adjust 

independently of the driver seat, the 

driver seat controls the final position of 

the passenger seat. 

S10.3.2.3.1 Using only the controls 

that primarily move the seat and seat 

cushion independent of the seat back in 

the fore and aft directions, move the seat 

cushion reference point (SCRP) to the 

rearmost position. Using any part of any 

control, other than those just used, 

determine the full range of angles of the 

seat cushion reference line and set the 

seat cushion reference line to the 

middle of the range. Using any part of 

any control other than those that 

primarily move the seat or seat cushion 

fore and aft, while maintaining the seat 

cushion reference line angle, place the 

SCRP to its lowest position. 

S10.3.2.3.2 Using only the control 

that primarily moves the seat fore and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2ER11SE07.005</GPH> ER11SE07.006</GPH>
51966 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

aft, move the seat reference point to the 

most forward position. 

S10.3.2.3.3 If the seat or seat 

cushion height is adjustable, other than 

by the controls that primarily move the 

seat or seat cushion fore and aft, set the 

seat reference point to the midpoint 

height, with the seat cushion reference 

line angle set as close as possible to the 

angle determined in S10.3.2.3.1. Mark 

location of the seat for future reference. 

S10.4 Positioning dummies for the 

vehicle-to-pole test. 

(a) 50th percentile male test dummy 

(49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U ES–2re 

dummy). The 50th percentile male test 

dummy is positioned in the front 

outboard seating position on the struck 

side of the vehicle in accordance with 

the provisions of S12.2 of this standard, 

49 CFR 571.214. 

(b) 5th percentile female test dummy 

(49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V SID–IIs 

dummy). The 5th percentile female test 

dummy is positioned in the front 

outboard seating positions on the struck 

side of the vehicle in accordance with 

the provisions of S12.3 of this standard, 

49 CFR 571.214. 

S10.5 Adjustable steering wheel. 

Adjustable steering controls are adjusted 

so that the steering wheel hub is at the 

geometric center of the locus it 

describes when it is moved through its 

full range of driving positions. If there 

is no setting detent in the mid-position, 

lower the steering wheel to the detent 

just below the mid-position. 

S10.6 Windows and sunroofs. 

Movable vehicle windows and vents are 

placed in the fully closed position on 

the struck side of the vehicle. Any 

sunroof is placed in the fully closed 

position. 

S10.7 Convertible tops. Convertibles 

and open-body type vehicles have the 

top, if any, in place in the closed 

passenger compartment configuration. 

S10.8 Doors. Doors, including any 

rear hatchback or tailgate, are fully 

closed and latched but not locked. 

S10.9 Transmission and brake 

engagement. For a vehicle equipped 

with a manual transmission, the 

transmission is placed in second gear. 

For a vehicle equipped with an 

automatic transmission, the 

transmission is placed in neutral. For all 

vehicles, the parking brake is engaged. 

S10.10 Rigid pole. The rigid pole is 

a vertical metal structure beginning no 

more than 102 millimeters (4 inches) 

above the lowest point of the tires on 

the striking side of the test vehicle when 

the vehicle is loaded as specified in S8.1 

and extending above the highest point 

of the roof of the test vehicle. The pole 

is 254 mm (10 inches) ± 6 mm (0.25 in) 

in diameter and set off from any 

mounting surface, such as a barrier or 

other structure, so that the test vehicle 

will not contact such a mount or 

support at any time within 100 

milliseconds of the initiation of vehicle 

to pole contact. 

S10.11 Impact reference line. The 

impact reference line is located on the 

striking side of the vehicle at the 

intersection of the vehicle exterior and 

a vertical plane passing through the 

center of gravity of the head of the 

dummy seated in accordance with S12 

in the front outboard designated seating 

position. The vertical plane forms an 

angle of 285 (or 75) degrees with the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline for the 

right (or left) side impact test. The angle 

is measured counterclockwise from the 

vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in 

S10.13. 

S10.12 Impact configuration. 

S10.12.1 The rigid pole is stationary. 

S10.12.2 The test vehicle is 

propelled sideways so that its line of 

forward motion forms an angle of 285 

(or 75) degrees (±3 degrees) for the right 

(or left) side impact with the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline. The angle is 

measured counterclockwise from the 

vehicle’s positive X-axis as defined in 

S10.13. The impact reference line is 

aligned with the center line of the rigid 

pole surface, as viewed in the direction 

of vehicle motion, so that, when the 

vehicle-to-pole contact occurs, the 

center line contacts the vehicle area 

bounded by two vertical planes parallel 

to and 38 mm (1.5 inches) forward and 

aft of the impact reference line. 

S10.13 Vehicle reference coordinate 

system. The vehicle reference 

coordinate system is an orthogonal 

coordinate system consisting of three 

axes, a longitudinal axis (X), a 

transverse axis (Y), and a vertical axis 

(Z). X and Y are in the same horizontal 

plane and Z passes through the 

intersection of X and Y. The origin of 

the system is at the center of gravity of 

the vehicle. The X-axis is parallel to the 

longitudinal centerline of the vehicle 

and is positive to the vehicle front end 

and negative to the rear end. The Y-axis 

is positive to the left side of the vehicle 

and negative to the right side. The Zaxis is positive above the X-Y plane and 

negative below it. 

S11 Anthropomorphic test 

dummies. The anthropomorphic test 

dummies used to evaluate a vehicle’s 

performance in the moving deformable 

barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests are 

specified in 49 CFR part 572. In a test 

in which the test vehicle is to be struck 

on its left side, each dummy is to be 

configured and instrumented to be 

struck on its left side, in accordance 

with part 572. In a test in which the test 

vehicle is to be struck on its right side, 

each dummy is to be configured and 

instrumented to be struck on its right 

side, in accordance with part 572. 

S11.1 Clothing. 

(a) 50th percentile male. Each test 

dummy representing a 50th percentile 

male is clothed in formfitting cotton 

stretch garments with short sleeves and 

midcalf length pants. Each foot of the 

test dummy is equipped with a size 

11EEE shoe, which meets the 

configuration size, sole, and heel 

thickness specifications of MIL–S–

13192 (1976) and weighs 0.68 ± 0.09 

kilograms (1.25 ± 0.2 lb). 

(b) 5th percentile female. The 49 CFR 

Part 572 Subpart V test dummy 

representing a 5th percentile female is 

clothed in formfitting cotton stretch 

garments with short sleeves and about 

the knee length pants. Each foot has on 

a size 7.5W shoe that meets the 

configuration and size specifications of 

MIL–S–2171E or its equivalent. 

S11.2 Limb joints. 

(a) For the 50th percentile male 

dummy, set the limb joints at between 

1 and 2 g. Adjust the leg joints with the 

torso in the supine position. Adjust the 

knee and ankle joints so that they just 

support the lower leg and the foot when 

extended horizontally (1 to 2 g 

adjustment). 

(b) For the 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart 

V 5th percentile female dummy, set the 

limb joints at slightly above 1 g, barely 

restraining the weight of the limb when 

extended horizontally. The force needed 

to move a limb segment does not exceed 

2 g throughout the range of limb motion. 

Adjust the leg joints with the torso in 

the supine position. 

S11.3 The stabilized temperature of 

the test dummy at the time of the test 

is at any temperature between 20.6 

degrees C and 22.2 degrees C. 

S11.4 Acceleration data. 

Accelerometers are installed on the 

head, rib, spine and pelvis components 

of various dummies as required to meet 

the injury criteria of the standard. 

Accelerations measured from different 

dummy components may use different 

filters and processing methods. 

S11.5 Processing Data. 

(a) Subpart F (SID) test dummy. 

(1) Process the acceleration data from 

the accelerometers mounted on the ribs, 

spine and pelvis of the Subpart F 

dummy with the FIR100 software 

specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d). Process 

the data in the following manner: 

(i) Filter the data with a 300 Hz, SAE 

Class 180 filter; 

(ii) Subsample the data to a 1600 Hz 

sampling rate; 

(iii) Remove the bias from the 

subsampled data; and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51967 

(iv) Filter the data with the FIR100 

software specified in 49 CFR 572.44(d), 

which has the following 

characteristics—

(A) Passband frequency 100 Hz. 

(B) Stopband frequency 189 Hz. 

(C) Stopband gain ¥50 db. 

(D) Passband ripple 0.0225 db. 

(2) [Reserved.] 

(b) Subpart U (ES–2re 50th percentile 

male) test dummy. 

(1) The rib deflection data are filtered 

at channel frequency class 600 Hz. 

Abdominal and pubic force data are 

filtered at channel frequency class of 

600 Hz. 

(2) The acceleration data from the 

accelerometers installed inside the skull 

cavity of the ES–2re test dummy are 

filtered at channel frequency class of 

1000 Hz. 

(c) Subpart V (SID–IIs 5th percentile 

female) test dummy. 

(1) The acceleration data from the 

accelerometers installed inside the skull 

cavity of the SID–IIs test dummy are 

filtered at channel frequency class of 

1000 Hz. 

(2) The acceleration data from the 

accelerometers installed on the lower 

spine of the SID–IIs test dummy are 

filtered at channel frequency class of 

180 Hz. 

(3) The iliac and acetabular forces 

from load cells installed in the pelvis of 

the SID–IIs are filtered at channel 

frequency class of 600 Hz. 

S12 Positioning procedures for the 

anthropomorphic test dummies. 

S12.1 50th percentile male test 

dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart F 

(SID). Position a correctly configured 

test dummy, conforming to the 

applicable requirements of part 572 

Subpart F of this chapter, in the front 

outboard seating position on the side of 

the test vehicle to be struck by the 

moving deformable barrier and, if the 

vehicle has a second seat, position 

another conforming test dummy in the 

second seat outboard position on the 

same side of the vehicle, as specified in 

S12.1.3. Each test dummy is restrained 

using all available belt systems in all 

seating positions where such belt 

restraints are provided. Adjustable belt 

anchorages are placed at the midadjustment position. In addition, any 

folding armrest is retracted. Additional 

positioning procedures are specified 

below. 

S12.1.1 Positioning a Part 572 

Subpart F (SID) dummy in the driver 

position. 

(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in 

place and push laterally on the nonimpacted side of the upper torso in a 

single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0 

N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side. 

(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and 

passes through the center of the steering 

wheel. 

(2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and 

coincides with the longitudinal 

centerline of the bucket seat. 

(b) Pelvis. 

(1) H–point. The H–points of each test 

dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2

inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 

mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal 

dimension of a point that is located 6.4 

mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the 

H–point determined by using the 

equipment for the 50th percentile and 

procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) 

(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR 

571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826 

is not applicable. The length of the 

lower leg and thigh segments of the H–

point machine are adjusted to 414 and 

401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches), 

respectively. 

(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using 

the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing 

78051–532 incorporated by reference in 

part 572, Subpart E of this chapter) 

which is inserted into the H–point 

gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of 

the plane of the surface on the lumbarpelvic adaptor on which the lumbar 

spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from 

the horizontal, sloping upward toward 

the front of the vehicle. 

(3) Legs. The upper legs of each test 

dummy rest against the seat cushion to 

the extent permitted by placement of the 

feet. The left knee of the dummy is 

positioned such that the distance from 

the outer surface of the knee pivot bolt 

to the dummy’s midsagittal plane is 

152.4 mm (6.0 inches). To the extent 

practicable, the left leg of the test 

dummy is in a vertical longitudinal 

plane. 

(4) Feet. The right foot of the test 

dummy rests on the undepressed 

accelerator with the heel resting as far 

forward as possible on the floorpan. The 

left foot is set perpendicular to the 

lower leg with the heel resting on the 

floorpan in the same lateral line as the 

right heel. 

S12.1.2 Positioning a Part 572 

Subpart F (SID) dummy in the front 

outboard seating position. 

(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in 

place and push laterally on the nonimpacted side of the upper torso in a 

single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0 

N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side. 

(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and 

the same distance from the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline as would be the 

midsagittal plane of a test dummy 

positioned in the driver position under 

S12.1.1(a)(1). 

(2) For a bucket seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and 

coincides with the longitudinal 

centerline of the bucket seat. 

(b) Pelvis. 

(1) H–point. The H–points of each test 

dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2

inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 

mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal 

dimension of a point that is located 6.4 

mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the 

H–point determined by using the 

equipment for the 50th percentile and 

procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) 

(incorporated by reference; see 49 CFR 

571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826 

is not applicable. The length of the 

lower leg and thigh segments of the H–

point machine are adjusted to 414 and 

401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches), 

respectively. 

(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using 

the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing 

78051–532 incorporated by reference in 

part 572, Subpart E of this chapter) 

which is inserted into the H–point 

gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of 

the plane of the surface on the lumbarpelvic adaptor on which the lumbar 

spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from 

the horizontal, sloping upward toward 

the front of the vehicle. 

(c) Legs. The upper legs of each test 

dummy rest against the seat cushion to 

the extent permitted by placement of the 

feet. The initial distance between the 

outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is 

292 mm (11.5 inches). To the extent 

practicable, both legs of the test 

dummies in outboard passenger 

positions are in vertical longitudinal 

planes. Final adjustment to 

accommodate placement of feet in 

accordance with S12.1.2(d) for various 

passenger compartment configurations 

is permitted. 

(d) Feet. The feet of the test dummy 

are placed on the vehicle’s toeboard 

with the heels resting on the floorpan as 

close as possible to the intersection of 

the toeboard and floorpan. If the feet 

cannot be placed flat on the toeboard, 

they are set perpendicular to the lower 

legs and placed as far forward as 

possible so that the heels rest on the 

floorpan. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

S12.1.3 Positioning a Part 572 

Subpart F (SID) dummy in the rear 

outboard seating positions. 

(a) Torso. Hold the dummy’s head in 

place and push laterally on the nonimpacted side of the upper torso in a 

single stroke with a force of 66.7–89.0 

N (15–20 lb) towards the impacted side. 

(1) For a bench seat. The upper torso 

of the test dummy rests against the seat 

back. The midsagittal plane of the test 

dummy is vertical and parallel to the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, and, if 

possible, the same distance from the 

vehicle’s longitudinal centerline as the 

midsagittal plane of a test dummy 

positioned in the driver position under 

S12.1.1(a)(1). If it is not possible to 

position the test dummy so that its 

midsagittal plane is parallel to the 

vehicle longitudinal centerline and is at 

this distance from the vehicle’s 

longitudinal centerline, the test dummy 

is positioned so that some portion of the 

test dummy just touches, at or above the 

seat level, the side surface of the 

vehicle, such as the upper quarter panel, 

an armrest, or any interior trim (i.e., 

either the broad trim panel surface or a 

smaller, localized trim feature). 

(2) For a bucket or contoured seat. 

The upper torso of the test dummy rests 

against the seat back. The midsagittal 

plane of the test dummy is vertical and 

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline, and coincides with the 

longitudinal centerline of the bucket or 

contoured seat. 

(b) Pelvis. 

(1) H–point. The H–points of each test 

dummy coincide within 12.7 mm (1⁄2

inch) in the vertical dimension and 12.7 

mm (1⁄2 inch) in the horizontal 

dimension of a point that is located 6.4 

mm (1⁄4 inch) below the position of the 

H–point determined by using the 

equipment for the 50th percentile and 

procedures specified in SAE J826 (1980) 

(incorporated by reference; see 49CFR 

571.5), except that Table 1 of SAE J826 

is not applicable. The length of the 

lower leg and thigh segments of the H–

point machine are adjusted to 414 and 

401 mm (16.3 and 15.8 inches), 

respectively. 

(2) Pelvic angle. As determined using 

the pelvic angle gauge (GM drawing 

78051–532 incorporated by reference in 

part 572, Subpart E of this chapter) 

which is inserted into the H–point 

gauging hole of the dummy, the angle of 

the plane of the surface on the lumbarpelvic adaptor on which the lumbar 

spine attaches is 23 to 25 degrees from 

the horizontal, sloping upward toward 

the front of the vehicle. 

(c) Legs. Rest the upper legs of each 

test dummy against the seat cushion to 

the extent permitted by placement of the 

feet. The initial distance between the 

outboard knee clevis flange surfaces is 

292 mm (11.5 inches). To the extent 

practicable, both legs of the test 

dummies in outboard passenger 

positions are in vertical longitudinal 

planes. Final adjustment to 

accommodate placement of feet in 

accordance with S12.1.3(d) for various 

passenger compartment configurations 

is permitted. 

(d) Feet. Place the feet of the test 

dummy flat on the floorpan and beneath 

the front seat as far as possible without 

front seat interference. If necessary, the 

distance between the knees may be 

changed in order to place the feet 

beneath the seat. 

S12.2 50th percentile male test 

dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart U 

(ES–2re). 

S12.2.1 Positioning an ES–2re 

dummy in all seating positions. Position 

a correctly configured ES–2re test 

dummy, conforming to the applicable 

requirements of part 572 of this chapter, 

in the front outboard seating position on 

the side of the test vehicle to be struck 

by the moving deformable barrier or 

pole. Restrain the test dummy using all 

available belt systems in the seating 

positions where the belt restraints are 

provided. Place adjustable belt 

anchorages at the mid-adjustment 

position. Retract any folding armrest. 

(a) Upper torso. 

(1) The plane of symmetry of the 

dummy coincides with the vertical 

median plane of the specified seating 

position. 

(2) Bend the upper torso forward and 

then lay it back against the seat back. 

Set the shoulders of the dummy fully 

rearward. 

(b) Pelvis. Position the pelvis of the 

dummy according to the following: 

(1) Position the pelvis of the dummy 

such that a lateral line passing through 

the dummy H–points is perpendicular 

to the longitudinal center plane of the 

seat. The line through the dummy H–

points is horizontal with a maximum 

inclination of ± 2 degrees. The dummy 

may be equipped with tilt sensors in the 

thorax and the pelvis. These 

instruments can help to obtain the 

desired position. 

(2) The correct position of the dummy 

pelvis may be checked relative to the H–

point of the H–point Manikin by using 

the M3 holes in the H–point back plates 

at each side of the ES–2re pelvis. The 

M3 holes are indicated with ‘‘Hm’’. The 

‘‘Hm’’ position should be in a circle 

with a radius of 10 mm (0.39 inches) 

round the H–point of the H–point 

Manikin. 

(c) Arms. For the driver seating 

position and for the front outboard 

seating position, place the dummy’s 

upper arms such that the angle between 

the projection of the arm centerline on 

the mid-sagittal plane of the dummy 

and the torso reference line is 40° ± 5°. 

The torso reference line is defined as the 

thoracic spine centerline. The shoulderarm joint allows for discrete arm 

positions at 0, 40, and 90 degree settings 

forward of the spine. 

(d) Legs and Feet. Position the legs 

and feet of the dummy according to the 

following: 

(1) For the driver’s seating position, 

without inducing pelvis or torso 

movement, place the right foot of the 

dummy on the un-pressed accelerator 

pedal with the heel resting as far 

forward as possible on the floor pan. Set 

the left foot perpendicular to the lower 

leg with the heel resting on the floor pan 

in the same lateral line as the right heel. 

Set the knees of the dummy such that 

their outside surfaces are 150 ± 10 mm 

(5.9 ± 0.4 inches) from the plane of 

symmetry of the dummy. If possible 

within these constraints, place the 

thighs of the dummy in contact with the 

seat cushion. 

(2) For other seating positions, 

without inducing pelvis or torso 

movement, place the heels of the 

dummy as far forward as possible on the 

floor pan without compressing the seat 

cushion more than the compression due 

to the weight of the leg. Set the knees 

of the dummy such that their outside 

surfaces are 150 ± 10 mm (5.9 ± 0.4 

inches) from the plane of symmetry of 

the dummy. 

S12.3 5th percentile female test 

dummy—49 CFR Part 572 Subpart V 

(SID–IIs). Position a correctly configured 

5th percentile female Part 572 Subpart 

V (SID–IIs) test dummy, conforming to 

the applicable requirements of part 572 

of this chapter, in the front outboard 

seating position on the side of the test 

vehicle to be struck by the pole and, for 

the moving deformable barrier, if the 

vehicle has a second seat, position a 

conforming test dummy in the second 

seat outboard position on the same side 

of the vehicle (side to be struck) as 

specified in S12.3.4. Retract any folding 

armrest. Additional procedures are 

specified below. 

S12.3.1 General provisions and 

definitions. 

(a) Measure all angles with respect to 

the horizontal plane unless otherwise 

stated. 

(b) Adjust the SID–IIs dummy’s neck 

bracket to align the zero degree index 

marks. 

(c) Other seat adjustments. The 

longitudinal centerline of a bucket seat 

cushion passes through the SgRP and is 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51969 

parallel to the longitudinal centerline of 

the vehicle. 

(d) Driver and passenger manual belt 

adjustment. Use all available belt 

systems. Place adjustable belt 

anchorages at the nominal position for 

a 5th percentile adult female suggested 

by the vehicle manufacturer. 

(e) Definitions. 

(1) The term ‘‘midsagittal plane’’

refers to the vertical plane that separates 

the dummy into equal left and right 

halves. 

(2) The term ‘‘vertical longitudinal 

plane’’ refers to a vertical plane parallel 

to the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

(3) The term ‘‘vertical plane’’ refers to 

a vertical plane, not necessarily parallel 

to the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline. 

(4) The term ‘‘transverse 

instrumentation platform’’ refers to the 

transverse instrumentation surface 

inside the dummy’s skull casting to 

which the neck load cell mounts. This 

surface is perpendicular to the skull 

cap’s machined inferior-superior 

mounting surface. 

(5) The term ‘‘thigh’’ refers to the 

femur between, but not including, the 

knee and the pelvis. 

(6) The term ‘‘leg’’ refers to the lower 

part of the entire leg including the knee. 

(7) The term ‘‘foot’’ refers to the foot, 

including the ankle. 

(8) For leg and thigh angles, use the 

following references: 

(i) Thigh—a straight line on the thigh 

skin between the center of the 1⁄2-13 

UNC–2B tapped hole in the upper leg 

femur clamp and the knee pivot 

shoulder bolt. 

(ii) Leg—a straight line on the leg skin 

between the center of the ankle shell 

and the knee pivot shoulder bolt. 

(9) The term ‘‘seat cushion reference 

point’’ (SCRP) means a point placed on 

the outboard side of the seat cushion at 

a horizontal distance between 150 mm 

(5.9 in) and 250 mm (9.8 in) from the 

front edge of the seat used as a guide in 

positioning the seat. 

(10) The term ‘‘seat cushion reference 

line’’ means a line on the side of the seat 

cushion, passing through the seat 

cushion reference point, whose 

projection in the vehicle vertical 

longitudinal plane is straight and has a 

known angle with respect to the 

horizontal. 

S12.3.2 5th percentile female driver 

dummy positioning. 

(a) Driver torso/head/seat back angle 

positioning. 

(1) With the seat in the position 

determined in S10.3.2, use only the 

control that moves the seat fore and aft 

to place the seat in the rearmost 

position. If the seat cushion reference 

line angle automatically changes as the 

seat is moved from the full forward 

position, maintain, as closely as 

possible, the seat cushion reference line 

angle determined in S10.3.2.3.3, for the 

final forward position when measuring 

the pelvic angle as specified in 

S12.3.3(a)(11). The seat cushion 

reference line angle position may be 

achieved through the use of any seat or 

seat cushion adjustments other than that 

which primarily moves the seat or seat 

cushion fore-aft. 

(2) Fully recline the seat back, if 

adjustable. Install the dummy into the 

driver’s seat, such that when the legs are 

positioned 120 degrees to the thighs, the 

calves of the legs are not touching the 

seat cushion. 

(3) Bucket seats. Center the dummy 

on the seat cushion so that its 

midsagittal plane is vertical and passes 

through the SgRP within ±10 mm (±0.4 

in). 

(4) Bench seats. Position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical 

and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline and aligned within ±10 mm 

(±0.4 in) of the center of the steering 

wheel rim. 

(5) Hold the dummy’s thighs down 

and push rearward on the upper torso 

to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle. 

(6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the 

thighs. Set the initial transverse distance 

between the longitudinal centerlines at 

the front of the dummy’s knees at 160 

to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the 

thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical 

planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s 

knees to force the pelvis into the seat so 

there is no gap between the pelvis and 

the seat back or until contact occurs 

between the back of the dummy’s calves 

and the front of the seat cushion. 

(7) Gently rock the upper torso 

relative to the lower torso laterally in a 

side to side motion three times through 

a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm 

(2 in) side to side). 

(8) If needed, extend the legs slightly 

so that the feet are not in contact with 

the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the 

seat cushion to the extent permitted by 

the foot movement. Keeping the leg and 

the thigh in a vertical plane, place the 

foot in the vertical longitudinal plane 

that passes through the centerline of the 

accelerator pedal. Rotate the left thigh 

outboard about the hip until the center 

of the knee is the same distance from 

the midsagittal plane of the dummy as 

the right knee ± 5 mm (± 0.2 in). Using 

only the control that moves the seat fore 

and aft, attempt to return the seat to the 

full forward position. If either of the 

dummy’s legs first contacts the steering 

wheel, then adjust the steering wheel, if 

adjustable, upward until contact with 

the steering wheel is avoided. If the 

steering wheel is not adjustable, 

separate the knees enough to avoid 

steering wheel contact. Proceed with 

moving the seat forward until either the 

leg contacts the vehicle interior or the 

seat reaches the full forward position. 

(The right foot may contact and depress 

the accelerator and/or change the angle 

of the foot with respect to the leg during 

seat movement.) If necessary to avoid 

contact with the vehicle’s brake or 

clutch pedal, rotate the test dummy’s 

left foot about the leg. If there is still 

interference, rotate the left thigh 

outboard about the hip the minimum 

distance necessary to avoid pedal 

interference. If a dummy leg contacts 

the vehicle interior before the full 

forward position is attained, position 

the seat at the next detent where there 

is no contact. If the seat is a power seat, 

move the seat fore and aft to avoid 

contact while assuring that there is a 

maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance 

between the vehicle interior and the 

point on the dummy that would first 

contact the vehicle interior. If the 

steering wheel was moved, return it to 

the position described in S10.5. If the 

steering wheel contacts the dummy’s 

leg(s) prior to attaining this position, 

adjust it to the next higher detent, or if 

infinitely adjustable, until there is 5 mm 

(0.2 in) clearance between the wheel 

and the dummy’s leg(s). 

(9) For vehicles without adjustable 

seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket 

to level the head as much as possible. 

For vehicles with adjustable seat backs, 

while holding the thighs in place, rotate 

the seat back forward until the 

transverse instrumentation platform of 

the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree, 

making sure that the pelvis does not 

interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the 

abdomen to ensure that it is properly 

installed. If the torso contacts the 

steering wheel, adjust the steering wheel 

in the following order until there is no 

contact: telescoping adjustment, 

lowering adjustment, raising 

adjustment. If the vehicle has no 

adjustments or contact with the steering 

wheel cannot be eliminated by 

adjustment, position the seat at the next 

detent where there is no contact with 

the steering wheel as adjusted in S10.5. 

If the seat is a power seat, position the 

seat to avoid contact while assuring that 

there is a maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) 

distance between the steering wheel as 

adjusted in S10.5 and the point of 

contact on the dummy. 

(10) If it is not possible to achieve the 

head level within ± 0.5 degrees, 

minimize the angle. 

(11) Measure and set the dummy’s 

pelvic angle using the pelvic angle gage. 

The angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the 

pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as 

possible while keeping the transverse 

instrumentation platform of the head as 

level as possible by adjustments 

specified in S12.3.2(a)(9) and (10). 

(12) If the dummy is contacting the 

vehicle interior after these adjustments, 

move the seat rearward until there is a 

maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the 

contact point of the dummy and the 

interior of the vehicle or if it has a 

manual seat adjustment, to the next 

rearward detent position. If after these 

adjustments, the dummy contact point 

is more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the 

vehicle interior and the seat is still not 

in its forwardmost position, move the 

seat forward until the contact point is 5 

mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle 

interior, or if it has a manual seat 

adjustment, move the seat to the closest 

detent position without making contact, 

or until the seat reaches its forwardmost 

position, whichever occurs first. 

(b) Driver foot positioning. 

(1) If the vehicle has an adjustable 

accelerator pedal, adjust it to the full 

forward position. If the heel of the right 

foot can contact the floor pan, follow the 

positioning procedure in 

S12.3.2(b)(1)(i). If not, follow the 

positioning procedure in 

S12.3.2(b)(1)(ii). 

(i) Rest the right foot of the test 

dummy on the un-depressed accelerator 

pedal with the rearmost point of the 

heel on the floor pan in the plane of the 

pedal. If the foot cannot be placed on 

the accelerator pedal, set it initially 

perpendicular to the leg and then place 

it as far forward as possible in the 

direction of the pedal centerline with 

the rearmost point of the heel resting on 

the floor pan. If the vehicle has an 

adjustable accelerator pedal and the 

right foot is not touching the accelerator 

pedal when positioned as above, move 

the pedal rearward until it touches the 

right foot. If the accelerator pedal in the 

full rearward position still does not 

touch the foot, leave the pedal in that 

position. 

(ii) Extend the foot and lower leg by 

decreasing the knee flexion angle until 

any part of the foot contacts the undepressed accelerator pedal or the 

highest part of the foot is at the same 

height as the highest part of the pedal. 

If the vehicle has an adjustable 

accelerator pedal and the right foot is 

not touching the accelerator pedal when 

positioned as above, move the pedal 

rearward until it touches the right foot. 

(2) If the ball of the foot does not 

contact the pedal, increase the ankle 

plantar flexion angle such that the toe 

of the foot contacts or is as close as 

possible to contact with the undepressed accelerator pedal. 

(3) If, in its final position, the heel is 

off of the vehicle floor, a spacer block 

is used under the heel to support the 

final foot position. The surface of the 

block in contact with the heel has an 

inclination of 30 degrees, measured 

from the horizontal, with the highest 

surface towards the rear of the vehicle. 

(4) Place the left foot on the toe-board 

with the rearmost point of the heel 

resting on the floor pan as close as 

possible to the point of intersection of 

the planes described by the toe-board 

and floor pan, and not on or in contact 

with the vehicle’s brake pedal, clutch 

pedal, wheel-well projection or foot rest, 

except as provided in S12.3.2(b)(6). 

(5) If the left foot cannot be positioned 

on the toe board, place the foot 

perpendicular to the lower leg 

centerline as far forward as possible 

with the heel resting on the floor pan. 

(6) If the left foot does not contact the 

floor pan, place the foot parallel to the 

floor and place the leg perpendicular to 

the thigh as possible. If necessary to 

avoid contact with the vehicle’s brake 

pedal, clutch pedal, wheel-well, or foot 

rest, use the three foot position 

adjustments listed in S12.3.2(b)(1)(i)–

(ii). The adjustment options are listed in 

priority order, with each subsequent 

option incorporating the previous. In 

making each adjustment, move the foot 

the minimum distance necessary to 

avoid contact. If it is not possible to 

avoid all prohibited foot contact, 

priority is given to avoiding brake or 

clutch pedal contact: 

(i) Rotate (abduction/adduction) the 

test dummy’s left foot about the lower 

leg; 

(ii) Planar flex the foot; 

(iii) Rotate the left leg outboard about 

the hip. 

(c) Driver arm/hand positioning. 

(1) Place the dummy’s upper arm 

such that the angle between the 

projection of the arm centerline on the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy and the 

torso reference line is 40° ± 5°. The torso 

reference line is defined as the thoracic 

spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint 

allows for discrete arm positions at 0, ± 

40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings 

where positive is forward of the spine. 

(2) [Reserved.] 

S12.3.3 5th percentile female front 

passenger dummy positioning 

(a) Passenger torso/head/seat back 

angle positioning. 

(1) With the seat at the mid-height in 

the full-forward position determined in 

S10.3.2, use only the control that 

primarily moves the seat fore and aft to 

place the seat in the rearmost position, 

without adjusting independent height 

controls. If the seat cushion reference 

angle automatically changes as the seat 

is moved from the full forward position, 

maintain, as closely as possible, the seat 

cushion reference line angle determined 

in S10.3.2.3.3, for the final forward 

position when measuring the pelvic 

angle as specified in S12.3.3(a)(11). The 

seat cushion reference line angle 

position may be achieved through the 

use of any seat or seat cushion 

adjustments other than that which 

primarily moves the seat or seat cushion 

fore-aft. 

(2) Fully recline the seat back, if 

adjustable. Place the dummy into the 

passenger’s seat, such that when the legs 

are positioned 120 degrees to the thighs, 

the calves of the legs are not touching 

the seat cushion. 

(3) Bucket seats. Place the dummy on 

the seat cushion so that its midsagittal 

plane is vertical and passes through the 

SgRP within ± 10 mm (± 0.4 in). 

(4) Bench seats. Position the 

midsagittal plane of the dummy vertical 

and parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal 

centerline and the same distance from 

the vehicle’s longitudinal centerline, 

within + 10 mm (± 0.4 in), as the 

midsagittal plane of the driver dummy. 

(5) Hold the dummy’s thighs down 

and push rearward on the upper torso 

to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle. 

(6) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the 

thighs. Set the initial transverse distance 

between the longitudinal centerlines at 

the front of the dummy’s knees at 160 

to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the 

thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical 

planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s 

knees to force the pelvis into the seat so 

there is no gap between the pelvis and 

the seat back or until contact occurs 

between the back of the dummy’s calves 

and the front of the seat cushion. 

(7) Gently rock the upper torso 

relative to the lower torso laterally in a 

side to side motion three times through 

a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm 

(2 in) side to side). 

(8) If needed, extend the legs slightly 

so that the feet are not in contact with 

the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the 

seat cushion to the extent permitted by 

the foot movement. With the feet 

perpendicular to the legs, place the 

heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not 

contact the floor pan, place it as close 

to the floor pan as possible. Using only 

the control that primarily moves the seat 

fore and aft, attempt to return the seat 

to the full forward position. If a dummy 

leg contacts the vehicle interior before 

the full forward position is attained, 

position the seat at the next detent 

where there is no contact. If the seats are 

power seats, position the seat to avoid 

contact while assuring that there is a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51971 

maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) distance 

between the vehicle interior and the 

point on the dummy that would first 

contact the vehicle interior. 

(9) For vehicles without adjustable 

seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket 

to level the head as much as possible. 

For vehicles with adjustable seat backs, 

while holding the thighs in place, rotate 

the seat back forward until the 

transverse instrumentation platform of 

the head is level to within ± 0.5 degree, 

making sure that the pelvis does not 

interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the 

abdomen to ensure that it is properly 

installed. 

(10) If it is not possible to achieve the 

head level within ± 0.5 degrees, 

minimize the angle. 

(11) Measure and set the dummy’s 

pelvic angle using the pelvic angle gage. 

The angle is set to 20.0 degrees ± 2.5 

degrees. If this is not possible, adjust the 

pelvic angle as close to 20.0 degrees as 

possible while keeping the transverse 

instrumentation platform of the head as 

level as possible by adjustments 

specified in S12.3.3(a)(9) and (10). 

(12) If the dummy is contacting the 

vehicle interior after these adjustments, 

move the seat rearward until there is a 

maximum of 5 mm (0.2 in) between the 

contact point of the dummy and the 

interior of the vehicle or if it has a 

manual seat adjustment, to the next 

rearward detent position. If after these 

adjustments, the dummy contact point 

is more than 5 mm (0.2 in) from the 

vehicle interior and the seat is still not 

in its forwardmost position, move the 

seat forward until the contact point is 5 

mm (0.2 in) or less from the vehicle 

interior, or if it has a manual seat 

adjustment, move the seat to the closest 

detent position without making contact, 

or until the seat reaches its forwardmost 

position, whichever occurs first. 

(b) Passenger foot positioning. 

(1) Place the front passenger’s feet flat 

on the toe board. 

(2) If the feet cannot be placed flat on 

the toe board, set them perpendicular to 

the leg center lines and place them as 

far forward as possible with the heels 

resting on the floor pan. 

(3) Place the rear seat passenger’s feet 

flat on the floor pan and beneath the 

front seat as far as possible without front 

seat interference. 

(c) Passenger arm/hand positioning. 

Place the dummy’s upper arm such that 

the angle between the projection of the 

arm centerline on the mid-sagittal plane 

of the dummy and the torso reference 

line is 40° ± 5°. The torso reference line 

is defined as the thoracic spine 

centerline. The shoulder-arm joint 

allows for discrete arm positions at 0, 

± 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings 

where positive is forward of the spine. 

S12.3.4 5th percentile female in rear 

outboard seating positions. 

(a) Set the rear outboard seat at the 

full rearward, full down position 

determined in S8.3.3. 

(b) Fully recline the seat back, if 

adjustable. Install the dummy into the 

passenger’s seat, such that when the legs 

are 120 degrees to the thighs, the calves 

of the legs are not touching the seat 

cushion. 

(c) Place the dummy on the seat 

cushion so that its midsagittal plane is 

vertical and coincides with the vertical 

longitudinal plane through the center of 

the seating position SgRP within ± 10 

mm (± 0.4 mm). 

(d) Hold the dummy’s thighs down 

and push rearward on the upper torso 

to maximize the dummy’s pelvic angle. 

(e) Place the legs at 120 degrees to the 

thighs. Set the initial transverse distance 

between the longitudinal centerlines at 

the front of the dummy’s knees at 160 

to 170 mm (6.3 to 6.7 in), with the 

thighs and legs of the dummy in vertical 

planes. Push rearward on the dummy’s 

knees to force the pelvis into the seat so 

there is no gap between the pelvis and 

the seat back or until contact occurs 

between the back of the dummy’s calves 

and the front of the seat cushion. 

(f) Gently rock the upper torso 

laterally side to side three times through 

a ± 5 degree arc (approximately 51 mm 

(2 in) side to side). 

(g) If needed, extend the legs slightly 

so that the feet are not in contact with 

the floor pan. Let the thighs rest on the 

seat cushion to the extent permitted by 

the foot movement. With the feet 

perpendicular to the legs, place the 

heels on the floor pan. If a heel will not 

contact the floor pan, place it as close 

to the floor pan as possible. 

(h) For vehicles without adjustable 

seat backs, adjust the lower neck bracket 

to level the head as much as possible. 

For vehicles with adjustable seat backs, 

while holding the thighs in place, rotate 

the seat back forward until the 

transverse instrumentation platform of 

the head is level to within ± 0.5 degrees, 

making sure that the pelvis does not 

interfere with the seat bight. Inspect the 

abdomen to insure that it is properly 

installed. 

(i) If it is not possible to orient the 

head level within ± 0.5 degrees, 

minimize the angle. 

(j) Measure and set the dummy’s 

pelvic angle using the pelvic angle 

gauge. The angle is set to 20.0 degrees 

± 2.5 degrees. If this is not possible, 

adjust the pelvic angle as close to 20.0 

degrees as possible while keeping the 

transverse instrumentation platform of 

the head as level as possible, as 

specified in S12.3.4(h) and (i). 

(k) Passenger foot positioning. 

(1) Place the passenger’s feet flat on 

the floor pan. 

(2) If the either foot does not contact 

the floor pan, place the foot parallel to 

the floor and place the leg as 

perpendicular to the thigh as possible. 

(l) Passenger arm/hand positioning. 

Place the rear dummy’s upper arm such 

that the angle between the projection of 

the arm centerline on the midsagittal 

plane of the dummy and the torso 

reference line is 0° ± 5°. The torso 

reference line is defined as the thoracic 

spine centerline. The shoulder-arm joint 

allows for discrete arm positions at 0, 

± 40, ± 90, ± 140, and 180 degree settings 

where positive is forward of the spine. 

S13 Phase-in of moving deformable 

barrier and vehicle-to-pole performance 

requirements for vehicles manufactured 

on or after September 1, 2009 and 

before September 1, 2012. 

S13.1 Vehicles manufactured on or 

after September 1, 2009 and before 

September 1, 2012. At anytime during 

the production years ending August 31, 

2012 and August 31, 2013, each 

manufacturer shall, upon request from 

the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

provide information identifying the 

vehicles (by make, model and vehicle 

identification number) that have been 

certified as complying with the moving 

deformable barrier test with advanced 

test dummies (S7.2) and vehicle-to-pole 

test requirements (S9.2) of this standard. 

The manufacturer’s designation of a 

vehicle as a certified vehicle is 

irrevocable. 

S13.1.1 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2009 and before 

September 1, 2010. Subject to S13.4, for 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2009 and before 

September 1, 2010, the number of 

vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2 

shall be not less than 20 percent of: 

(a) The manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured in 

the three previous production years; or 

(b) The manufacturer’s production in 

the current production year. 

S13.1.2 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2010 and before 

September 1, 2011. Subject to S13.4, for 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2010 and before 

September 1, 2011, the number of 

vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2 

shall be not less than 50 percent of: 

(a) The manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured in 

the three previous production years; or 

(b) The manufacturer’s production in 

the current production year. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
51972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

S13.1.3 Vehicles manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2011 and before 

September 1, 2012. Subject to S13.4, for 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2011 and before 

September 1, 2012, the number of 

vehicles complying with S7.2 and S9.2 

shall be not less than 75 percent of: 

(a) The manufacturer’s average annual 

production of vehicles manufactured in 

the three previous production years; or 

(b) The manufacturer’s production in 

the current production year. 

S13.2 Vehicles produced by more 

than one manufacturer. 

S13.2.1 For the purpose of 

calculating average annual production 

of vehicles for each manufacturer and 

the number of vehicles manufactured by 

each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and 

S13.1.2, a vehicle produced by more 

than one manufacturer shall be 

attributed to a single manufacturer as 

follows, subject to S13.2.2. 

(a) A vehicle that is imported shall be 

attributed to the importer. 

(b) A vehicle manufactured in the 

United States by more than one 

manufacturer, one of which also 

markets the vehicle, shall be attributed 

to the manufacturer that markets the 

vehicle. 

S13.2.2 A vehicle produced by more 

than one manufacturer shall be 

attributed to any one of the vehicle’s 

manufacturers specified by an express 

written contract, reported to the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration under 49 CFR part 585, 

between the manufacturer so specified 

and the manufacturer to which the 

vehicle would otherwise be attributed 

under S13.2.1. 

S13.3 For the purposes of 

calculating average annual production 

of vehicles for each manufacturer and 

the number of vehicles manufactured by 

each manufacturer under S13.1.1 and 

S13.1.2, do not count any vehicle that 

is excluded by Standard No. 214 from 

the moving deformable barrier test with 

the ES–2re or SID–IIs test dummies 

(S7.2) or from the vehicle-to-pole test 

requirements. 

S13.4 Calculation of complying 

vehicles. 

(a) For the purposes of calculating the 

vehicles complying with S13.1.1, a 

manufacturer may count a vehicle if it 

is manufactured on or after October 11, 

2007, but before September 1, 2010. 

(b) For purposes of complying with 

S13.1.2, a manufacturer may count a 

vehicle if it—

(1) Is manufactured on or after 

October 11, 2007, but before September 

1, 2011 and, 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S13.1.1. 

(c) For purposes of complying with 

S13.1.3, a manufacturer may count a 

vehicle if it—

(1) Is manufactured on or after 

October 11, 2007, but before September 

1, 2012 and, 

(2) Is not counted toward compliance 

with S13.1.1 or S13.1.2. 

(c) For the purposes of calculating 

average annual production of vehicles 

for each manufacturer and the number 

of vehicles manufactured by each 

manufacturer, each vehicle that is 

excluded from having to meet the 

applicable requirement is not counted. 

■ 4. Section 571.301 is amended by 

revising S6.3(b) and S7.2(b), to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.301 Standard No. 301; Fuel system 

integrity. 

S6.3 Side moving barrier crash. 

* * * 

(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2004. When the vehicle is 

impacted laterally on either side by a 

moving deformable barrier at 53 ± 1.0 

km/h with 49 CFR part 572, subpart F 

test dummies at positions required for 

testing by S7.1.1 of Standard 214, under 

the applicable conditions of S7 of this 

standard, fuel spillage shall not exceed 

the limits of S5.5 of this standard. 

* * * * * 

S7.2 Side moving barrier test 

conditions. * * * 

(b) Vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2004. The side moving 

deformable barrier crash test conditions 

are those specified in S8 of Standard 

214 (49 CFR 571.214). 

■ 5. Section 571.305 is amended by 

revising S6.3 and S7.5, to read as 

follows: 

§ 571.305 Standard No. 305; Electricpowered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and 

electrical shock protection. 

* * * * * 

S6.3 Side moving deformable barrier 

impact. The vehicle must meet the 

requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 

when it is impacted from the side by a 

barrier that conforms to part 587 of this 

chapter that is moving at any speed up 

to and including 54 km/h, with 49 CFR 

part 572, subpart F test dummies 

positioned in accordance with S7 of 

Sec. 571.214 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

S7.5 Side moving deformable barrier 

impact test conditions. In addition to 

the conditions of S7.1 and S7.2, the 

conditions of S8 of Sec. 571.214 of this 

chapter apply to the conduct of the side 

moving deformable barrier impact test 

specified in S6.3. 

* * * * * 

PART 585—PHASE–IN REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 585 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

■ 7. Part 585 is amended by adding 

Subpart H to read as follows: 

Subpart H—Side Impact Protection Phasein Reporting Requirements 

Sec. 

585.71 Scope. 

585.72 Purpose. 

585.73 Applicability. 

585.74 Definitions. 

585.75 Response to inquiries. 

585.76 Reporting requirements. 

585.77 Records. 

Subpart H—Side Impact Protection 

Phase-in Reporting Requirements 

§ 585.71 Scope. 

This part establishes requirements for 

manufacturers of passenger cars, and of 

trucks, buses and multipurpose 

passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 

kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less, 

to submit a report, and maintain records 

related to the report, concerning the 

number of such vehicles that meet the 

moving deformable barrier test 

requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, 

Side impact protection (49 CFR 

571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test 

requirements of S9 of that standard. 

§ 585.72 Purpose. 

The purpose of these reporting 

requirements is to assist the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

in determining whether a manufacturer 

has complied with the requirements of 

Standard No. 214, Side Impact 

Protection (49 CFR 571.214). 

§ 585.73 Applicability. 

This part applies to manufacturers of 

passenger cars, and of trucks, buses and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. 

However, this part does not apply to 

vehicles excluded by S2 and S5 of 

Standard No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214) from 

the requirements of that standard. 

§ 585.74 Definitions. 

(a) All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 

30102 are used in their statutory 

meaning. 

(b) Bus, gross vehicle weight rating or 

GVWR, multipurpose passenger vehicle, 

passenger car, and truck are used as 

defined in § 571.3 of this chapter. 

(c) Production year means the 12- 

month period between September 1 of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 51973 

one year and August 31 of the following 

year, inclusive. 

(d) Limited line manufacturer means 

a manufacturer that sells three or fewer 

carlines, as that term is defined in 49 

CFR 583.4, in the United States during 

a production year. 

§ 585.75 Response to inquiries. 

At anytime during the production 

years ending August 31, 2010, and 

August 31, 2013, each manufacturer 

shall, upon request from the Office of 

Vehicle Safety Compliance, provide 

information identifying the vehicles (by 

make, model and vehicle identification 

number) that have been certified as 

complying with the moving deformable 

barrier and vehicle-to-pole tests of 

FMVSS No. 214 (49 CFR 571.214). The 

manufacturer’s designation of a vehicle 

as a certified vehicle is irrevocable. 

§ 585.76 Reporting requirements 

(a) Advanced credit phase-in 

reporting requirements. (1) Within 60 

days after the end of the production 

years ending August 31, 2008, and 

August 31, 2009, each manufacturer 

choosing to certify vehicles 

manufactured during any of those 

production years as complying with the 

upgraded moving deformable barrier 

(S7.2 of Standard No. 214)(49 CFR 

571.214) or vehicle-to-pole requirements 

(S9) of Standard No. 214 shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration providing the 

information specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section and in § 585.2 of this part. 

(b) Phase-in reporting requirements. 

Within 60 days after the end of each of 

the production years ending August 31, 

2010, August 31, 2011, and August 31, 

2012, each manufacturer shall submit a 

report to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration concerning its 

compliance with the moving deformable 

barrier requirements of S7 of Standard 

No. 214 and with the vehicle-to-pole 

requirements of S9 of that Standard for 

its vehicles produced in that year. Each 

report shall provide the information 

specified in paragraph (c) of this section 

and in section 585.2 of this part. 

(c) Advanced credit phase-in report 

content—(1) Production of complying 

vehicles. With respect to the reports 

identified in § 585.76(a), each 

manufacturer shall report for the 

production year for which the report is 

filed the number of vehicles, by make 

and model year, that are certified as 

meeting the moving deformable barrier 

test requirements of S7.2 of Standard 

No. 214, Side impact protection (49 CFR 

571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test 

requirements of S9 of that standard. 

(d) Phase-in report content—(1) Basis 

for phase-in production goals. Each 

manufacturer shall provide the number 

of vehicles manufactured in the current 

production year, or, at the 

manufacturer’s option, in each of the 

three previous production years. A new 

manufacturer that is, for the first time, 

manufacturing passenger cars for sale in 

the United States must report the 

number of passenger cars manufactured 

during the current production year. 

(2) Production of complying vehicles. 

Each manufacturer shall report for the 

production year being reported on, and 

each preceding production year, to the 

extent that vehicles produced during the 

preceding years are treated under 

Standard No. 214 as having been 

produced during the production year 

being reported on, information on the 

number of passenger vehicles that meet 

the moving deformable barrier test 

requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, 

Side Impact Protection (49 CFR 

571.214), and the vehicle-to-pole test 

requirements of S9 of that standard. 

§ 585.77 Records 

Each manufacturer shall maintain 

records of the Vehicle Identification 

Number for each vehicle for which 

information is reported under § 585.76 

until December 31, 2016. 

Issued on: August 30, 2007. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–4360 Filed 9–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES2